client_query_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key traits: results are cumulative, no completion flag, and repeated calls are safe/cheap. This goes beyond the schema and provides important operational context.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second adds essential behavioral nuance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage (polling approach), and key behavioral traits. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool. The output schema covers return value details, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema already documents query_id as 'Query ID returned by client_query_submit' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the 'previously submitted' link but adds little beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('current results for a previously submitted client fast query'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like client_query_submit and client_query. The phrase 'previously submitted' clarifies the stateful nature of this tool.

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 provides clear polling guidance: results are cumulative, there is no completion flag, and it is safe/cheap to call repeatedly until reported_count stabilizes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it obvious that this is the retrieval counterpart to client_query_submit.

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