simulatte_get_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists the contents of the returned JSON (verdicts, key drivers, objections, etc.), but does not mention operational aspects such as read-only nature, latency, error handling for missing or incomplete studies, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second enumerates the key data returned. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main use case and return format. However, it lacks a mention of the prerequisite relationship with simulatte_run_study (i.e., that the study must be run first and completed). Slight improvement would include that linkage.

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 only parameter, study_id, is described in the schema as 'Study ID returned from simulatte_run_study'. The description in the tool description repeats exactly that, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: retrieving results for a completed Simulatte study. It specifies the verb 'Retrieve results' and the resource 'completed Simulatte study', and lists the contents of the returned JSON. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like simulatte_run_study (which starts a study) and simulatte_ask_insights (which likely provides interactive insights).

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 study completion by saying 'for a completed Simulatte study', but it does not explicitly state the prerequisite of having run simulatte_run_study first or warn against using it on incomplete studies. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity about proper sequence.

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