share_lesson_sync_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying it surfaces error information (i.e. failures are reported in-band rather than thrown). It omits polling semantics and whether status values are terminal, which matters for an async-task tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the resource being queried. Appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it leaves obvious gaps rather than wasting words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the three fields surfaced. However, for an async task-status tool, the missing link to the sibling start/login tools and the absence of any polling guidance leave a real gap for an agent orchestrating a sync.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — but it never explains what task_id is or where to obtain it (presumably from share_lesson_sync_start). Format and provenance are left entirely to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (查询) plus specific resource (课程同步任务) and it even enumerates what is returned: status, sync count, and error info. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling share_lesson_sync_start / share_lesson_sync_login_url, so an agent must infer that this is the polling step of that workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Purely a purpose statement: there is no when-to-use, no note that it should be called after share_lesson_sync_start, no guidance on polling cadence or when to stop retrying. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'task_id'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.