provider.query_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds 'Risk: read', 'maturity: L1', and notes that per-request checks and session policy still apply, which is useful but minimal. No contradiction with annotations 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 short and reasonably structured, but the opening sentence redundantly restates the tool name and title. The risk and maturity clauses are efficiently packed, yet the overall text spends space on restatement rather than purpose.

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 tool with required providerId and taskId, the description leaves the core semantics unexplained and offers no connection to the task lifecycle or related provider tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description is still too thin for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 only 50%, and the required parameters providerId and taskId have no descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning or relationship of these parameters; it only vaguely references argument checks.

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 only restates the command name and provides risk/maturity metadata; it never states a verb or resource. It does not explicitly say this tool retrieves the result of a previously submitted provider task, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name and parameters.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description mentions generic requirements about argument checks and session policy, but does not explain when to choose this over provider_query, provider_status, or other provider-related siblings.

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