line_result

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description adds value by disclosing the status state machine (running/done/failed), the shape of the done payload (hand, lines ordered best-first, steps, end board, remaining hand, surviving interruptions), and the edge case that unplayable cards are reported. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence that leads with the tool's identity and then enumerates the payload, with no filler. The colon-separated clauses stay dense and readable. Slightly list-like but appropriately sized.

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 output schema exists, so the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly for the 'done' case. Gaps remain: the 'running' and 'failed' payloads and the source of job_id are not addressed, and there is no polling guidance. Still largely complete for a result-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?

There is one parameter, job_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden of explaining it. It never mentions job_id, where it comes from, or its format, even though the whole tool is keyed on it. The meaning is only loosely inferred from 'Result of a find_lines search.'

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 states a specific resource and scope: it returns the result of a find_lines search, including the status lifecycle and the result contents. It differentiates from the sibling find_lines by framing itself as the result-retrieval counterpart. The core verb (retrieve/poll a job's result) is only implied by the noun phrase rather than stated outright.

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?

Naming find_lines implies this is where you fetch that search's output, but the description never explicitly says 'call this with the job_id returned by find_lines,' nor does it explain polling/retry behavior while status is 'running'. Usage is inferable from the sibling reference rather than spelled out.

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