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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description enriches this by stating that retrieval 'starts no new work and costs nothing, so it is always safe to retry', explains that a job not yours and a nonexistent job are answered identically (a deliberate privacy feature), and notes the 7-day availability window. All this adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 efficiently structured: it leads with the core purpose, then flows through the two modes, usage guidance, privacy behavior, and an extension note. Every sentence conveys a distinct, valuable piece of information without redundancy. The length is justified given the tool's dual-mode nature and the nuances it covers.

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 tool with optional input and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the agent needs to know: what is returned with and without job_id, the behavior for missing/unauthorized jobs, the 7-day retention, the safety of retries, and the alternative via tasks/get. Nothing material is left unexplained, making it complete for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 input schema already provides a complete description of the `job_id` parameter, including its purpose and the behavior of omitting it. The tool description essentially repeats the schema's information without adding new semantic depth beyond saying the same thing. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not introduce any additional parameter semantics.

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 precisely states what the tool does: retrieve the result of an earlier TuringCorp call by job_id. It explicitly covers both invocation modes (with and without job_id) and clearly distinguishes this retrieval action from other potential operations (e.g., 'decide' sibling). The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'result' are specific and 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'If a call was cut off, retrieve it here instead of calling again - a retry is a new paid call.' It also clarifies the no-job_id case for listing available ids and mentions an alternative (tasks/get) for the same job. This gives clear context for when to select this tool over a fresh call.

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