a4a_get_task_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: only events from agreement parties are surfaced, while the relay may return any matching event. It does not state pagination, ordering, or whether it is strictly read-only, leaving some behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the scoping rule, then args and returns in a conventional order. The sentence explaining relay vs. party authority is somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence, but the slight overshoot is defensible for a security-relevant scope rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so the terse 'Returns: Results and their references' is sufficient. Both parameters are addressed and the party-authority filtering is stated; only minor gaps remain (pagination, error conditions, explicit read-only framing) for a tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: agreement_id is identified as the agreement, and task_id is described with the critical null semantic ('None returns every task in the agreement') that the bare schema omits. Format/syntax details for the IDs are still missing.

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 ('View work results under an agreement'), which is clearly a read of recorded work outputs rather than task definitions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like a4a_get_tasks or a4a_get_counterparty_evidence, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the party-only constraint and the 'task_id None returns every task' note, which tells the agent the scope-control pattern. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance relative to a4a_get_tasks or a4a_get_counterparty_evidence.

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