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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds a modest amount beyond that: results are finished/delivered and the payload includes the request version and underlying sources, which hints at the shape of the response. It stops short of saying what happens when the run is not finished, or whether retrieval is cached or rate-limited.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 is the only place return values can be explained, and it gives only a fragment (request version plus sources). Combined with a completely undocumented required parameter and no differentiation from several close siblings, an agent cannot reliably decide when to call this or what it will get back.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the single parameter and fails to do so — find_id is never mentioned or defined, and the description never even clarifies that the identifier is a find id rather than some other run identifier. The mismatch between "run" in the description and find_id in the schema actively creates ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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 verb ("reads") and an object ("a run's finished results"), which is more than a tautology, but the vocabulary is ambiguous: the only parameter is find_id, yet the description talks about a "run," leaving the agent to infer that a run and a find are the same thing. It also does nothing to separate this from siblings like get_find, get_investigation_results, or get_research_rule_results.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says whether to call this instead of get_find when the run is still in progress, or how it relates to export_find or get_investigation_results. The word "finished" hints at a precondition but never states it as a rule.

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