get_job_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content and the completion precondition, which is genuinely helpful, but says nothing about what happens if the job is not finished, whether the call is safe to repeat, or any size/rate constraints.

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 with no filler; purpose leads, return content follows, precondition closes. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool, with only minor overlap between the first and second sentences.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by summarizing the return payload and the precondition. However, it omits the not-yet-complete/error case and the relationship to download_results, leaving real gaps for a results-retrieval 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 100%: job_id and the server_type enum (bacteria/fungi/plant) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or matching guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the results of a completed antiSMASH job') and even enumerates what comes back (gene clusters, regions, cluster types). It is clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job_details or download_results, so an agent must guess which of the three returns what.

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 gives one precondition: 'The job should be completed before calling this tool.' That is useful implied workflow guidance, but it does not name the sibling that verifies completion (check_job_status / wait_for_job) or explain when to prefer this over download_results for raw output.

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