Get Search Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about returning search status and found files, and provides default limit. There is no contradiction, and the description aligns with annotations well.

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 concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are clear but could be slightly more compact. No wasted sentences.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for a typical use case. It covers search_id source, pagination, and return content. However, it does not explain behavior when search is still running vs completed, which might be useful.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds context linking search_id to fc_start_search, offset and limit for pagination, but this is only marginally beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies 'retrieves results of a running or completed search', which clearly indicates the verb (retrieves) and resource (search results). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fc_start_search, fc_stop_search, and fc_list_searches by focusing on result retrieval.

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 implies usage after starting a search (via search_id from fc_start_search) and provides pagination parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like fc_list_searches for listing search IDs.

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