tool_get_optimization_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently frames the tool as a read operation and lists the shape of the returned data, but it does not disclose what happens if the optimization_id is missing, invalid, or belongs to an optimization that has not completed. There is also no explicit statement that the call has no side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise list of return fields. Every element adds useful orientation without excessive detail.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, and the description covers the main precondition ('completed') and the outcome. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to duplicate return details, though a brief pointer to tool_get_optimization_status for in-progress optimizations would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema provides no description for optimization_id, and the tool description does not explicitly explain that this parameter is the identifier returned when an optimization is submitted. However, the phrase 'results of a completed optimization' plus the parameter name make the intended meaning reasonably clear.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get the results') and clearly scopes the tool to completed optimizations, distinguishing it at a glance from status or backtest tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state what this tool is not, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 qualifier 'completed' implies the tool should only be called after an optimization finishes, and the sibling tool_get_optimization_status is the natural alternative for ongoing runs. But the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of status or any other sibling, so the guidance is only implied.

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