get_experiment_results

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get results/cells' without detailing return format, pagination, field filtering behavior, or any side effects. The safety profile is only implied by the verb 'get', which is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is extremely terse and could profitably include a note about the 'fields' parameter or return format without becoming verbose.

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 tool has low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) but no output schema, so the description must explain return values. 'Results/cells' vaguely indicates what is returned but lacks detail on structure or filtering. The description is minimally adequate for a simple getter.

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 has full descriptive coverage: experiment_id is 'Experiment (ad study) ID' and fields is 'Comma-separated fields to return'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'results/cells of an experiment (ad study)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_experiment, which likely fetches experiment metadata, making the purpose 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need experiment results/cells) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when to use get_experiment instead, leaving usage context to be inferred from the name.

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