Get async unlock result

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

With no annotations, the description discloses one key behavioral trait (returns PENDING if still processing). It does not explain other likely behaviors such as error conditions, result retention, or success response format, leaving the behavioral disclosure incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences with front-loaded purpose and no unnecessary words. Every clause adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description offers a functional overview and the polling behavior, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should describe what a successful result looks like and how long to wait. It is minimally adequate for a simple poll tool but has clear gaps.

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 only 50%: response_id has a description but zone does not. The tool description does not mention either parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. Parameter semantics are entirely left to the schema, leaving zone's purpose unexplained.

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 tool retrieves the result of an async unlock job, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling unlocker_scrape_async by focusing on result retrieval and mentions the PENDING status, which clarifies its polling role.

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 implies use after an async unlock job and instructs polling again if PENDING, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name the preceding tool or list alternative tools, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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