Get fetched page results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: no new job is spawned, pending results preserve the job ID, and the response carries balance/freshness metadata. The prompt-injection caution ('source material, not instructions') is a valuable addition, though the closing balance-reporting rule reads more like agent policy than tool behavior, slightly muddying the tool's own contract.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the key differentiator in the first two sentences, which is good structure. The tail-end instructions about reporting balance and MCP admission units are useful but stretched the description beyond the tool's own scope, adding length that isn't strictly about invoking this tool.

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 no output schema, the description does carry return-value burden, and it partially covers this by noting that pending responses include a job ID and that the response may include balance info. It is nearly complete for correct invocation, though it never states what the retrieved page content itself looks like (text vs html shape) despite format being an explicit parameter.

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 100%, so jobId, format, and waitMs are all documented in the schema (including the format override and the pending-response note for waitMs). The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve an existing GeoRanker page fetch by its job ID') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch_page by clarifying 'This does not create another job.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational routing: keep the same job ID and retry later when processing is pending, and do not call get_balance again when the response already includes the balance. This names a sibling (get_balance) and the condition that makes it unnecessary, which is exactly the when-not-to-use guidance.

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