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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful billing context with “Never charges again,” but it does not explain whether the call waits for completion, returns a pending status, or what happens if the result is not yet ready.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key operational constraint about billing.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify the return behavior when the screen is still running, which matters because no output schema is provided.

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 ref parameter is already documented with an example. The description adds provenance by explaining that the reference comes from run_screen, but it does not add format or validation details beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it returns the result of a Sortefi screen and ties that result to the reference produced by run_screen. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling run_screen tool.

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 states the key usage condition: call this when run_screen answered while the screen was still running, using the reference run_screen provided. It does not explicitly address edge cases such as what to do if the screen is already complete, but the context is clear.

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