tolly_recover_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call is free and requires credentials returned by the original paid call, but says nothing about expiry, retention of stored answers, or what happens when jobId/jobToken are invalid or no longer available.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the core action and the cost benefit appear first. The trailing parenthetical about where the identifiers come from is slightly compressed.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior alone. It conveys enough to attempt the call but omits error cases (expired job, invalid token) and whether stored answers persist indefinitely — material for a recovery tool.

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 two parameters are documented only by type and regex pattern. The description adds real value by stating that jobId and jobToken come from the earlier paid call, but gives no guidance on token lifetime, scope, or failure behavior.

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 stored answer of a paid call, re-retrieved for free. The "again (free)" framing distinguishes it from the original paid invocation, but it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling tolly_job_get, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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?

Implies the use case: re-reading a previously paid answer without paying again, using credentials from the original call. It offers no explicit exclusions or routing against siblings like tolly_job_get or tolly_jobs_search, so the agent must infer which one to pick.

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