exa_research_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the non-obvious blocking/polling behavior (waits up to wait_seconds for completion before returning), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth, error behavior, or what is returned when the run is still incomplete after the wait.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; there is minor redundancy in repeating exa_research_start twice, but no wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the polling semantics are covered. The remaining meaningful gap is what happens when the run has not finished within wait_seconds (partial status vs. timeout error), which an agent needs to branch on.

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 description must compensate, and it does: run_id is explained as the identifier returned by exa_research_start, and wait_seconds is defined as the pre-return wait with its 0-50 range. It stops short of describing run_id's format or the consequence of hitting the wait limit.

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+resource: retrieving the status and result of a research run. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling exa_research_start as the originating call, so an agent can place it in the async research lifecycle without reading either schema.

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 pairing with exa_research_start makes the usage context clear (call this after starting a run to poll/collect it). It gives no explicit when-not conditions or timeout-handling guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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