Read background delivery

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: queued is not completed, failed/unknown receipts carry a report block for direct display, and unknown work is never auto-replayed. It stops short of describing timeout behavior for waitSec or the set of terminal states.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping constraint. Each sentence carries information; only the 'show directly in this chat' phrasing is slightly incidental.

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 two-parameter read-only poll tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back at a high level (receipt, report block on failure) and the non-replay guarantee. Output shape details are not needed given the annotations and schema coverage.

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 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented, including waitSec's semantics. The description aligns with the schema by noting requestId originates from send_to_worker, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 (read/wait) on a specific resource (durable background task receipt) keyed by requestId. It distinguishes itself from send_to_worker by referencing 'its original requestId' and by clarifying that a queued receipt is not a completed response, though it does not explicitly name siblings like worker_status.

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?

Makes the polling/waiting context clear and warns against treating a queued receipt as a final answer. It does not explicitly state when to prefer worker_status or list_workers, leaving the sibling routing implicit.

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