x_result_get

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: no network access, chunk-type semantics, and the ability to resume the original query via a cursor. No contradiction with 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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds information, though the second sentence is somewhat dense and the 'source_cursor' reference creates avoidable ambiguity.

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 annotations and output schema cover a lot, and a basic call is understandable. However, the description omits how result_id is obtained and leaves the cursor/pagination behavior confusing because 'source_cursor' does not match the schema parameter name.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only explains field and item_id, and references 'source_cursor' while the actual schema parameter is 'cursor'. Limit and detail are left unexplained, and the source of the required result_id is not clarified.

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's action and object: 'Read saved results without network.' The phrase 'saved results' distinguishes it from live-query siblings like x_search, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('without network', 'saved results') and provides conditional guidance for item_id vs field=json. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the workflow implication is strong.

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