Get task status and results

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), which only establish that this is a safe repeatable read. The description adds cost ('Free'), failure handling ('Failed tasks are refunded automatically'), and a 24-hour retention limit on result links — exactly the operational facts an agent needs beyond the schema.

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?

Five short sentences with no filler. The return payload is front-loaded, followed by cost, polling semantics, failure/refund behavior, and link expiry — each sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so explicitly (status states, progress, result_urls, fail_reason). Combined with the timeout and link-expiry behavior, an agent can call and interpret this tool correctly with nothing 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 coverage is only 50%, and the undocumented parameter is wait_seconds; the description fully compensates by supplying the semantic range (0-45), the default (30), and the behavior (keeps polling until finished or timeout). It also frames task_id's provenance ('returned by generate_image or generate_video') via the schema.

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 ('Read an image or video task') and enumerates exactly what is returned (status, progress, result_urls, fail_reason). This is plainly distinct from the sibling generators (generate_image/generate_video) and account tools (check_balance) without ambiguity.

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 clear operating context: the tool is free, pollable via wait_seconds, and result links expire after 24 hours, which tells the agent it must fetch results promptly. It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this after generate_image/generate_video' or naming when-not-to-call, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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