get_extracted_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the default format behavior and the 202 in-progress response, but it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or what the completed response body contains beyond general categories.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the format default and in-progress behavior are relevant operational details that earn their place.

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 retrieval tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when it applies, and a key async behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain how to proceed after a 202 response or explicitly connect to get_upload_status, but those are minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema: it restates the format default and clarifies that the results come from a processed document, but uploadId and format are already adequately documented in the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the extracted structured results (biomarkers, test values, reference ranges) for a completed document.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from the upload tools and from get_upload_status by focusing on actual extracted results rather than upload or status information.

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 provides clear context: it is for a completed document, and it returns HTTP 202 if processing is still in progress. It implies when the tool should be used, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_upload_status or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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