Get a search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningfully: the call is free, it blocks server-side up to `wait_seconds` while the search runs, and it defaults to the latest turn. It omits auth requirements, error/not-found behavior, and any rate-limit context.

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, front-loaded with the resource and return payload, then parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the return shape (status, answer, coverage counts, top quotes) and explains the polling/wait loop. That is sufficient for an agent to call and consume it, though error and auth context is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the 'call again to resume' resume hint for `wait_seconds`. The description adds minor value by restating default-turn and wait semantics but nothing beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Read a search') and enumerates what it returns (status, cited answer, coverage counts, top quotes), which separates it from the write-side `search`/`ask` siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explains conditional use of `turn_id` ('otherwise the latest turn is returned') and when waiting applies, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over `list_searches`, `get_quotes`, or `get_sources`, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied from the read-the-result framing.

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