get_results

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'persisted' qualifier, which hints that results are stored and returned after jobs have run, but it does not clarify behavior around incomplete jobs, invalid IDs, or response handling.

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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With readOnlyHint, an output schema, and a single self-explanatory parameter, the description is nearly complete for this simple batch-read tool. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit lifecycle context, though 'persisted' partially covers that.

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 compensate for the undocumented job_ids parameter. It does this only loosely by referring to 'selected jobs', which maps to job_ids but adds no detail about ID format, limits, or semantics beyond what the property name already implies.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('persisted metadata and results') for selected jobs, which conveys the batch retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with get_job or get_jobs, but the plural 'jobs' plus the required job_ids parameter makes the batch nature reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_job, get_jobs, or list_jobs, and no mention of prerequisites such as jobs being completed. The only usage signal is implicit from 'selected jobs' and the job_ids parameter.

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