Retrieve a solve by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: that reading never re-bills, that the result may exist even after timeout, and the 404 meaning. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior in edge cases.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: the core function, the critical use case, and error interpretation. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids repetition of the title. No extraneous information.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one properly documented parameter, the description covers the core usage: when to call it, what the id means, and how to interpret 404. It does not specify the return format, but the explanation of the timeout-retrieval scenario is the most crucial context, and it is well addressed. Premium output schema is absent, but the description needn't explain return values if not available.

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 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema documents the parameter format (slv_8Kd2aF9). The description mentions 'the id is in that error message' which adds a source for the id value, but this is more usage context than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameter well.

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 the tool's purpose: fetch a previously created solve by its id. The verb 'Fetch' is specific and the resource 'solve' is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from solve_turnstile by explicitly mentioning the timeout-and-retry scenario, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use this when solve_turnstile timed out while pending. It also explains the 404 error semantics, which helps an agent interpret the outcome. No alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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