get_optimizer_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the overwrite hazard, explains the meaning of result columns, warns against mixing incompatible metrics, and notes that placeholder arrays are stripped server-side.

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 long but structured with clear headings, bullets, and mode-based sections. Every section adds necessary information about behavior, parameter usage, or result semantics, and the opening sentence immediately states the core function.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers both invocation modes, return key structures, column interpretation pitfalls, and parameter semantics, leaving an agent well-equipped to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains run_id's provenance from run_optimizer's response, its purpose for polling a specific run, and its optional/default nature. model_hash is described as the hash of the optimized model, which is sufficient given the schema's required string field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get budget optimization status and results.' It clearly distinguishes the two modes (model-level latest run vs. specific run via run_id) and ties to run_optimizer, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many siblings.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each form: without run_id for the latest model-level state, with run_id to poll a specific run. It warns that a newer run can overwrite the latest view and explicitly tells the agent to poll with run_id when it needs to know whether its own run completed.

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