Read Acceptance Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'bounded report text', implying truncation behavior, and 'final persisted' indicating idempotent read of stored state. It doesn't detail the output schema structure, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Single sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place — 'final persisted', 'bounded', and 'after a long acceptance run completes' all carry meaningful semantic weight.

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 a rich output schema present, comprehensive input schema with 100% coverage, and clear read-only annotations. The description covers the core purpose, timing, and result format adequately. For a read operation with strong structured documentation, this description is complete and appropriately scoped.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters (run_id required, max_chars bounded 1000-60000, workspace_id/conversation_id/workspace_generation for binding). The description name-drops 'run_id' and 'bounded report text' which aligns with max_chars semantics. The description adds minimal param-specific value since the schema already explains defaults and binding behavior thoroughly.

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 (Read), the resource (final persisted acceptance result and bounded report text), and the context (after a long acceptance run completes). It differentiates from siblings like acceptance_status (which polls running state) and read_run_task_result (which reads task-level results) by specifying 'final persisted' result and 'bounded report text', which distinguishes it as the terminal read after completion.

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 phrase 'after a long acceptance run completes' conveys clear timing guidance — this tool is for post-completion reading, not for status polling (which is covered by sibling acceptance_status). It could be more explicit about when NOT to use it (e.g., before completion), but the temporal framing plus sibling context provides adequate differentiation.

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