check_task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool surfaces intermediate progress as well as final outputs, which is modest extra value, but it says nothing about polling behavior, whether tasks persist, or how in-progress results differ from completed ones.

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 front-loaded sentence with the primary verb ("Check") leading and the three sub-capabilities following in a compact list. No filler, no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers enough that the agent knows when and how to call it without needing to explain return values. Minor gaps around polling/refresh expectations keep it from a 5.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents task_id and its expected format ("task_..."). The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource combination ("Check task execution status") and enumerates three concrete capabilities: status checking, progress inspection, and deliverable retrieval. It clearly does not overlap with the sibling tools (search_marketplace_agents, list_available_agents, publish_agent_task), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives clear usage context by listing the scenarios it serves (status, intermediate progress, completed outputs), so an agent knows what to reach for it for. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative tool, but the sibling set is functionally distinct enough that no routing conflict arises.

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