Get task status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the output URL is only present if the task completed, and wait:true blocks until a final state. It omits error/failed-state handling and any polling-timeout or rate-limit context.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage contexts and the wait hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rightly carries the return-value burden and does so by naming status plus the conditional output URL. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter status tool, though it does not sketch the status values or the shape of a failed result.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the exact semantics of wait. The description's "Pass wait:true to block until it finishes" essentially restates the schema's wait description, adding no new format or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the status ... of a task by id") and even states the conditional return value (output URL when completed). It is distinguishable from the sibling list_tasks by the "by id" framing, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top band.

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 provides concrete triggering contexts: resume after a webhook, after a polling timeout, or after a generation started with wait:false. That is real when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage. It stops short of a 5 because it does not state when not to use this tool or point to an alternative (e.g. list_tasks).

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