edf_get_app_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful non-annotation facts: results are paginated and EDF native labels are provisional (a data-reliability caveat). It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether provisional labels can change between calls.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The provisional-label caveat is somewhat cryptic without elaboration, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with three completely undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an unexplained enum, the description is thin. An agent cannot determine what 'source' selects or how paging behaves from either the schema or the description.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for limit, offset, and source. It only hints at pagination and never explains the checker/crawler enum or the defaults, leaving the semantics of all three parameters essentially undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read paginated results from the manual EDF app UI. It distinguishes itself from sibling edf_get_job. It is slightly vague on what 'EDF app UI results' actually contain, but an agent can tell it apart from the job-oriented siblings.

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 routes automated-job consumers to edf_get_job instead, which is a clear when-not signal. It does not, however, mention the other plausible alternatives such as edf_export_results or edf_status, so the routing is only partial.

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