Expand Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. Beyond that, the description says nothing about what happens with a stale or unknown resultId, how continuation strings are obtained or exhausted, or what the detail levels change – the real behavioral questions for this tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure concision.

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?

A 10-parameter, no-output-schema expansion tool needs far more: how the five addressing modes (section, range, page, item, continuation) relate or conflict, expected resultId provenance, and what full versus standard detail yields. None of this is present.

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?

With only 30% schema coverage across 10 parameters, the description should compensate but instead merely echoes parameter names (resultId, section, range, page, continuation). It adds no meaning for item, detail, or the three required _-prefixed bookkeeping parameters, which carry the most agent-facing burden.

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: 'expand a prior summary-first result' and names the keys that drive the expansion. It is distinguishable from the sibling namespaces, though 'summary-first result' is unexplained jargon an agent may not resolve without extra context.

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 guidance on when to call this versus re-querying the originating helius* tool, nor on prerequisites such as whether the resultId must come from a prior call in the same session. Usage is only implied by the word 'prior'.

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