get_analysis_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: it returns only a structured summary with rating and resource reference, and points to the resource URI for the full report. This goes beyond the schema and 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?

The description is succinct and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a short intro, a clarifying note about return contents, and a simple Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundant fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter), the annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, what it doesn't return, and that the task must be completed. It sufficiently differentiates from sibling tools and provides enough guidance for correct 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 schema only defines run_id as a required string with no description, so the description carries the burden. The line 'Args: run_id: Task identifier for a completed analysis' adds meaningful context about what the parameter represents and the expected state. It does not provide format examples, but that is minor for a single identifier.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the result summary of a completed analysis task.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_analysis_status (status) and start_analysis (initiate) by focusing on the result summary. The qualifier 'completed' adds precision.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used after an analysis completes, noting it is for a 'completed analysis task.' It also clarifies that the full markdown report is accessed via a resource URI, guiding the user away from expecting that here. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_analysis_status for checking progress.

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