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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the execution is not found, whether results are paginated, or what the response structure is. It neither contradicts the annotation nor adds meaningful transparency beyond it.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, which is concise. However, it lacks any structural elements such as usage notes or exclusions that would make it more informative. It is not bloated, but it is also not optimally structured to convey essential context.

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 retrieval tool with two UUID parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what the tool does but not when to use it, what the results contain, or any edge cases. Given the low complexity and the presence of a readOnlyHint, it is sufficient for a basic call but lacks the guidance a more complex tool would need.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (connector_id as 'UUID of the connector' and execution_id as 'UUID of the discovery execution'), with 100% coverage. The description adds no further detail about the parameters, so it does not enhance what the schema already documents. Baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('discovery results'), which aligns with the parameters connector_id and execution_id. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling connector_discover_status, which also relates to discovery executions. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after connector_discover or connector_discover_status, nor does it note any prerequisites or sequencing. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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