get_jam_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine semantic context beyond that: the caveat that funnel counts are cumulative and not completion indicators, and that failed or abstaining agents contribute nothing. That is real interpretive guidance an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the one-line summary before detailing each result key, and every sentence carries information. The quoted-key walkthrough is slightly dense but each entry explains a distinct output field rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still gives enough framing for the result categories and their interpretation to orient an agent. With one required parameter and readOnly annotations, nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, and the description only restates "jam_id: Jam ID." with no added meaning about where the ID comes from or how it relates to sibling calls. The parameter is largely self-evident and the schema carries the pattern constraint, so this lands at the baseline rather than lower.

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 ("Show a Jam's results") and enumerates the three output dimensions: participation, mean probabilities, top ideas. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_jam_responses by framing this as aggregate results rather than per-response data.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_jam_responses when it needs to follow individual agents, and explains that "funnel" reflects cumulative activity rather than Jam completion. Lacks an explicit statement of when this tool should be called (e.g., after launch), but the alternative is named clearly.

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