get_scenario_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it thoroughly. It discloses that newer runs overwrite the latest scenario, that run_id-scoped results are immune to later runs, and that failed scenarios return status 'failed' with an error in the JSON body rather than as an HTTP error, even advising to always check the status field.

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 longer than average but tightly organized with paragraph breaks and an Args list. Every section carries functional information, and the key distinction between run_id modes is placed early before the detailed response fields.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete: it covers both call modes, response contents, failure semantics, parameter sources, and the overwrite pitfall. An agent has enough to select the correct form, construct arguments, and interpret results correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains model_hash as the model identifier and gives rich semantics for run_id, including its format ('scn_...'), its source, and how its presence changes the response shape and reliability of the result.

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 clearly states the tool returns scenario prediction results and distinguishes two modes: latest scenario state versus a specific saved run identified by run_id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling get_model_results, relying on the 'scenario' resource framing rather than naming the alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance for both forms: without run_id for the latest model-level scenario, and with run_id when polling your own run or disambiguating back-to-back scenarios. It also explains where run_id comes from (run_scenario or list_runs) and warns about the overwrite behavior.

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