get_validation_result

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 correctly implies a read-only operation ('fetch'), but does not disclose potential edge cases such as behavior for invalid/missing validation_id, data freshness, or whether the tool has side effects. For a simple retrieval tool this is minimally adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, one clearly defined action) and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return values. The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity, though it could have briefly mentioned that this is the follow-up to run_checkpoint.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter, including an explicit note that validation_id is 'ID returned from run_checkpoint().' The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies a clear resource ('detailed validation results') scoped to 'a prior validation run.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_checkpoint, which presumably initiates the run.

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 phrase 'for a prior validation run' implies this tool should be used after run_checkpoint has been called. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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