Get async task status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. Description adds context about two access methods (poll_url vs canonical), which is behavioral information beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose and ID sources. However, it omits any mention of the return format, which could be helpful since no output schema is provided.

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 100%, but description adds meaning by explaining the parameter can come from `id`, `task_id`, or be embedded in `poll_url`. This aids the agent in correctly obtaining the ID.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves status and result of an async generation task. It specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'async task status', and distinguishes from other purposes by mentioning polling vs canonical endpoint.

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 guidance to prefer the `poll_url` returned by the create response, and contrasts with the canonical `/v1/tasks/{id}` endpoint. This helps the agent choose between alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use the tool.

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