get_sql_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature of the result, but does not explain behavior around readiness, errors, or idempotency. This is more than a bare tautology but lacks rich behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and required input. No wasted words; every phrase contributes meaning.

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 retrieval tool, the description is adequate: it names the input and its origin. It does not mention return value shape or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers essential context.

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 0% and the schema only labels the parameter as 'Result Key'. The description adds meaning by clarifying it is the key returned by execute_sql, which is essential for correct invocation. This compensates well for the sparse 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 specifically states the tool 'Retrieve[s] an asynchronous SQL Lab result' using a resultsKey from execute_sql. This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and mechanism, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_sql by framing it as the retrieval counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied through 'using the resultsKey returned by execute_sql', which tells the agent when to invoke this tool (as a follow-up to an async execution). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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