get_area_analysis_task

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that running progress is unknown, that success does not guarantee the result cache still exists, that the task_id is only valid in the same server runtime, and how to recover on TASK_RUNTIME_CHANGED. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into Use when / Do not use when / Requires / Returns / Follow-up blocks. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a single-parameter polling tool this is complete: it covers prerequisites, what the snapshot contains, known limitations of the state signal, and the next step. Even though an output schema exists, the caveats about unknown progress and cache expiry are exactly the gaps structured output could not convey.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it specifies the parameter's provenance (returned by submit_area_analysis) and a runtime constraint (same server runtime), which is real meaning beyond 'task_id: string'. It stops short of describing the ID's format or lifetime beyond the runtime caveat.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll an area task's state, deadline, failure, and normalized request') and enumerates exactly what fields the snapshot covers. This cleanly separates it from submit_area_analysis, get_area_analysis_result, and cancel_area_analysis_task without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' clauses, including the negative guidance not to submit a new job merely to poll and not to use it for result pages. It also routes to the correct siblings ('get_area_analysis_result after success; cancel_area_analysis_task if unwanted') and gives a recovery path for TASK_RUNTIME_CHANGED.

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