getStatusOfAnAsyncApiTask

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no mention of rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or polling behavior. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple status retrieval), rich annotations (safety hints), and full schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., status states like 'pending', 'completed', 'failed'), which could help the agent interpret results. This gap keeps it at an adequate but not excellent level.

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%, with clear documentation for apiId, taskId, and Accept parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, this earns the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%).

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 ('Gets') and resource ('status of an asynchronous task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'getCollection' or 'getWorkspace' which retrieve different resources, but the specificity of 'asynchronous task status' provides adequate differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID from a previous async operation) or contrast with synchronous APIs. With many sibling 'get' tools, this omission leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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