athena_extraction_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a fetch operation (read-only behavior implied) and mentions the return includes payload and provenance. However, it does not describe error behavior, prerequisites, or response format, which are gaps for a tool where no other structured information exists.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It starts with the verb 'Fetch' and delivers the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the result payload structure, provenance format, and error handling. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return value would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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 one parameter, result_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly map the parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema; although the parameter name is self-descriptive, the description fails to capitalize on the opportunity to clarify that result_id identifies which extraction result to fetch.

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 the tool fetches one witnessed extraction result payload and provenance, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling extraction tools like athena_extraction_expand_result by focusing on fetching a single result rather than expanding or planning.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it has a result_id from an extraction workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity among the many extraction-related siblings.

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