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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not download or parse XLSX, returns up to 100 rows, and is safe to use after has_result=true. These specifics go beyond what annotations convey, though auth details and rate limits are not mentioned.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (function, alternative, caveat). No redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers return values implicitly. It handles pagination, preconditions, alternatives, and thread-safety (read-only) comprehensively. This is a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (limit, offset, task_id). The description reinforces 'up to 100 rows' and 'offset/next_offset' but doesn't add substantive new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (Return), resource (result rows from an API-key account task), and output format (native structured JSON). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_direct_result_preview for accountless x402 tasks, making it unambiguous.

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 usage context: when to use (after has_result=true), when to avoid (accountless x402 tasks, use get_direct_result_preview), and alternative for complete XLSX (get_result_download_url). Also mentions pagination via offset/next_offset. This is comprehensive guidance.

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