Pick up the result of a Phi Longevity job (by job_ref)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation is stateless ('Nothing is stored') and the job_ref itself encodes the chosen closed options, which explains why retrieval works across conversations. It omits failure/expiry behavior for an invalid or unfinished job_ref.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and source, then portability, then the statelessness caveat. No sentence is redundant.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description only needs to cover origin, timing and durability of the job_ref, which it does. The remaining gap is error/readiness behavior — what happens if the job is not yet complete — for a tool whose whole value is deferred retrieval.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the job_ref is the value returned by prepare_for_my_appointment and is self-contained, carrying only the closed options that were chosen. That tells the agent the ref is opaque and portable, beyond the schema's 'returned by ... (or start_job)' note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'fetch the finished result of prepare_for_my_appointment' — and ties it to the exact sibling that produces the job_ref. An agent can distinguish it from preparation and from the other report/fetch tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use it after prepare_for_my_appointment, 'any time later and in a new conversation.' It does not state a when-not case (e.g. what to do if the job is not finished yet, or how this differs from start_job named in the schema), so a small gap remains.

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