Get a grid

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the output includes a full ranks matrix oriented north-up, change versus the prior grid of the same listing, and a map image that appears only 'once completed' — implying a not-yet-finished state an agent must expect. It does not discuss cost, rate limits, or error states when the grid is pending.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary concept ('Status and result'), then the return contents. Slightly overloaded as a comma-separated list, but every clause adds information and none is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so well by naming the four output components. It is complete for a read-only getter apart from the undocumented grid_id and the absence of any mention of incomplete/pending responses.

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 0% and the single grid_id parameter is documented nowhere; the description never says what a grid_id is, that it is a UUID, or how to obtain one. With one required param and zero schema-level documentation, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get_grid') and enumerates the concrete payload: ranks matrix, competitors most often in top 3, change since previous grid, and the rendered map. It also names the producer sibling (run_grid) so the agent can place it. It does not explicitly contrast with list_grids, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'created with run_grid or the API' tells the agent this reads back an asynchronous job, and 'once completed' hints at polling. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_grids/list_schedules, and no stated prerequisite that a grid_id must first come from run_grid.

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