Get Operation Result Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: the response is a single bounded page, it exposes only field-filtered 'safe public details,' and critically it clarifies that fetching results will not resume or advance the underlying operation — a real behavioral concern for a result-poller.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the non-mutation reassurance. Minor redundancy between 'bounded' and 'one... page' keeps it just short of a 5.

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 carries the burden of describing the returned payload, and it only says 'safe public details' without indicating the item shape, ordering, or what indicates a next page. Pagination mechanics are left entirely to the cursor parameter's schema text; adequate but not complete.

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 cursor, page_size and operation_handle are fully documented in the schema (including the maxLength, pattern and 1-50 bounds). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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 (Retrieve) and resource (one bounded page of operation results) with explicit scope: only from a completed operation, only public details. It distinguishes itself from a mutation/resume path via 'never resumes or mutates,' but it never names the sibling it pairs with (e.g. get_execution_plan_page) or any alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'from a completed operation' implicitly tells the agent this is only valid after completion, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisite (where does operation_handle come from?), and no named alternative, leaving usage to inference.

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