get_result

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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, the description adds some behavioral context ('persisted' and 'when completed'), implying the result is only available after completion. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for non-completed jobs, error conditions, or whether the call blocks. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it could add a brief note about parameter requirements without becoming verbose.

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?

Since an output schema is present, return values don't need describing, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. However, the description does not clarify the distinction from get_job/get_results or explain the behavior when a job is not completed, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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 carries the burden of explaining the job_id parameter. It does not mention job_id at all, nor its format or how to obtain it. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('persisted job metadata and its result'), and adds the condition 'when completed' which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_job (metadata only) and get_results (multiple results). An agent can accurately identify the tool's scope.

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 the tool is used after a job completes, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like get_job or list_jobs, nor does it provide exclusionary guidance. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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