forward_get_results

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It states the tool collects 'verified results, each with its charge', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what authentication is required, or any side effects. The behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 a single sentence with 10 words, which is very concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently dense. While it wastes no words, it also fails to provide necessary details, so it is not a model of good conciseness that earns its place.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter but no output schema. The description implies the output includes results with charges but gives no structure or details. For a tool with low complexity, the description should at least clarify what 'verified results' means. It is incomplete, as agents need more context to interpret the output 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema itself. The tool description also fails to explain the 'engagement_id' parameter beyond the schema's type and required flag. It does not add any meaning, such as format, source, or constraints, making it insufficient for the agent to understand how to populate the parameter correctly.

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 states the verb 'collect' and the resource 'verified results for an engagement', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like forward_get_engagement, which might retrieve engagement metadata rather than results. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., forward_get_engagement, forward_quote). There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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