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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful traits: the operation is free, it returns status/verdict/signed receipt, and it relates to an earlier asynchronous paid call. However, it does not disclose whether retrieval is one-time or repeatable, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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, tightly packed sentence. 'Free.' is front-loaded and immediately communicates a key trait. Every remaining phrase adds meaning: what is returned, the context, and the required inputs. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential points: what the tool returns, when to use it, and what inputs are needed. It does not explain error cases or polling behavior, but those are not critical for this straightforward retrieval operation.

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 both parameters already have descriptions saying they come from the paid call. The description's phrase 'using the job_id and result_token it returned' adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 identifies the resource and action: retrieving the status, verdict, and signed receipt of an earlier paid call using job_id and result_token. It goes beyond the title 'Get a result' by specifying the content of the result. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check or skillcheck_lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states the triggering context: an earlier paid call was still running and returned job_id and result_token. This implies the tool is the follow-up retrieval step for asynchronous calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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