optimization.get_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: full candidate populations are never returned and top_solutions is capped by the run's top_k. It also notes the smaller-response option. It does not mention whether results are partial for an in-progress run, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the truncation caveat and the size option. No waste, though the line breaks and inline code styling are slightly noisy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Given that, the description covers purpose, the key data-completeness limitation, and the response-size control, which is everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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. It explains include_top_solutions' effect ('smaller response') and ties top_solutions to top_k, but says nothing about run_id's format or source, leaving half the parameters 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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('run status, progress and the stored result summary'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_runs or compare_results. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching results implies the run exists, and the include_top_solutions flag is framed as a response-size tradeoff. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus compare_results or list_runs, and no prerequisites are stated.

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