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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: skipped testers are counted but not listed, choice/rate options are seeded with every offered option, other:true marks free-typed answers, completion:0 can mean no tester could see the task, file URLs are time-limited and unstable, and invalid tagId/testerUserId filters are rejected rather than ignored.

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 dense but front-loads the purpose and then explains result-reading semantics in a single long paragraph. Most clauses earn their place because there is no output schema, though the semicolon-heavy structure is less scannable than it could be.

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 lack of an output schema and the complexity of task result semantics, the description thoroughly covers skipped counts, per-step answer shapes, completion edge cases, time-limited file URLs, tester drop definitions, instruction-step exceptions, and filter validation. It is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including tagId and testerUserId as optional filters. The description adds only a narrow validation note that invalid tagId/testerUserId filters are rejected with an error; it does not otherwise deepen parameter meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed results for a specific task, including step-level answers and ticket counts.' It also references sibling tools such as getTaskPerformanceSummary, getStepResults, and getAnswerAttachment, helping an agent distinguish this task-level results tool from related reporting tools.

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 gives clear contextual routing: use getStepResults on an instruction step to see acknowledgments, and use getAnswerAttachment with a stable answer resource id for file attachments. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over getTaskPerformanceSummary versus when to use both, but the use context is clear.

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