Get fal.ai Queue Request Result

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description confirms the tool fetches (read-only) and idempotently returns the same result, and adds context about error conditions (404, auth failure) that annotations don't cover. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling. Each sentence is informative and not redundant. It is concise yet comprehensive, front-loading key usage guidance.

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 no output schema, the description explains return structure (model-specific payload) and format differences (markdown vs json). It also covers prerequisites (status must be COMPLETED), error handling, and includes examples. This provides complete context for using the tool.

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 100%, but description adds meaning: provides an example for model_id (e.g., 'fal-ai/minimax/video-01'), explains request_id's origin from fal_submit_request, and explains the response_format options with human vs. machine usage. This adds value beyond 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 clearly states it fetches the final output of a queued request. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is used after submission and status check, and references fal_submit_request and fal_check_status, making its 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?

Explicitly instructs to call only after fal_check_status reports COMPLETED, warns against calling earlier, and provides error handling info. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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