get_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that it returns an error for running queries, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the results format looks like (e.g., structured data, pagination). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a critical behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and a key error condition but lacks details on output format, error types, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what 'results' entail would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'queryExecutionId' and 'maxRows' (including default and constraints). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a query execution ID is or how maxRows affects performance. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Get results for a completed query.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('results'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_status' (which likely checks query status) and 'run_query' (which initiates queries). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_saved_queries' or 'run_saved_query,' keeping it from a perfect score.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'for a completed query.' It implies an alternative by stating 'Returns error if query is still running,' suggesting 'get_status' should be used first to check completion. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, such as when not to use it (e.g., for saved queries without execution).

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