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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-result semantics, pagination behavior tied to job state, and failure-mode handling — all non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know. It does not mention rate limits or auth specifics, but the api_key parameter in the schema covers authentication, so the remaining gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded purpose in the first sentence, followed by well-organized lifecycle usage guidance. Roughly 90 words for a paginated, state-dependent retrieval tool is appropriately economical. Every sentence earns its place, though the three usage sentences could arguably be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Complete for a tool of this complexity. The description covers call timing, partial results, pagination strategy, and failure handling, while the output schema covers return values and the schema covers parameters at 100%. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around pagination ('iterate all pages', 'typically page=1') that reinforces the page parameter's role, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents. The description and schema together are coherent, though neither exceeds the other's contribution.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the results of a job.' The description also names the payload ('clustered, validated, and enriched web results'), which distinguishes this from sibling pull_job_csv (CSV format) and pull_monitor_results (monitor context). An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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?

Provides explicit lifecycle guidance: call before completion for partial results, after completion for the full set, repeatedly while active, iterate all pages at completed, and once more on failure. This is precisely the kind of when-to-call instruction that prevents agent misuse, and it maps directly to the job lifecycle an agent will be driving via submit_query and get_job_status.

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