workiva_wdata_get_query_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 only states that it gets a result, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as potential pagination, size limits, or whether the run must be complete. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about safety or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. It has no unnecessary words and earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description omits contextual details like when a run result becomes available or any limitations on result size. It is minimally sufficient for a simple getter but lacks depth for an agent to anticipate edge cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning: it defines query_id as 'The query UUID' and run_id as 'The run ID.' This is only slightly more informative than the schema titles, and does not describe format or constraints beyond UUID for query_id.

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 clearly states 'Get the result of a Wdata query run,' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_query_run or workiva_wdata_run_query, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the run being completed. This is a clear gap.

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