Check task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it specifies the response includes status history, seen_by_operator_at, eta, notes, and for delivered tasks a receipt and deliverable_sha256 with verification instructions. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the full lifecycle and verification process.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the return fields in order of importance. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes meaningful information, including the verification URL. It is efficient without being terse.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, the special fields, the verification mechanism for delivered tasks, and the source of the task_id. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret the response. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter task_id, and the schema already explains it is the ID returned by submit_human_task. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter itself; it merely references 'task_id' in passing. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Look up' and the resource 'submitted task by its task_id', and then enumerates exactly what information is returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_human_task or message_human_operator by focusing solely on status retrieval, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use the tool: after a task has been submitted via submit_human_task, to check its status. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools. It could have said 'Use this after submitting a task' but the implication is strong enough.

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