Check a delegated task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the running/finished state machine, tells the agent to back off polling, and specifies that "result" matches ask_agent's return shape. It omits error/failure states, timeouts, and whether completed tasks persist or can be re-read, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, no filler, and the ordering is well front-loaded: identity/linkage first, then the polling-avoidance behavior an agent most needs before it calls.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does cover the two salient fields and the relationship to ask_agent's payload. A single-parameter lookup needs little more, though a note about terminal failure states would close the remaining gap.

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% and the single "id" parameter is already documented in the schema as "The task id returned by start_task." The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 and resource ("look up a task") and anchors it to the sibling that creates it ("started with start_task"), which cleanly separates it from start_task, ask_agent, and list_agents. It also names the two response fields ("status", "result") an agent will act on, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete calling guidance: use it after start_task, and while status is "running" wait rather than polling in a tight loop. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use ask_agent instead, or what to do on a failed task), so it falls just short of the top tier.

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