check_task

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals important behavior: the callback key is single-use and 'burns' after successful completion, status values are 'Not ready' vs 'OK', and deployment can take 10–30 minutes. This is meaningful context an agent needs for polling behavior.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful detail: callback source, result statuses, key consumption, and timing. No filler or 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 single-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to call it, what results mean, and the side effect of key consumption. An agent has enough guidance to use it correctly without further documentation.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'key' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter semantics. It does reinforce that the key comes from an async operation, but this is essentially the same information as the schema description.

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 action ('Проверка статуса асинхронной операции') and a clear resource (callback-key). It also explains how this is distinct: it is the companion to operations that return a callback key, so an agent can tell it apart from the many sibling tools.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: when an InvAPI operation returns a callback key, pass that key here. It also describes expected result values and that the key is consumed on success corrected. It does not name alternatives because no sibling tool covers async status checks, but the usage context is clear.

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