get_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses possible grade values and retention limits by environment, which is more than the tool name alone provides. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, returns one record per prop, or paginates results.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, each carrying distinct information. The grade taxonomy is front-loaded, and the environment-specific retention detail is efficiently placed in the second sentence with no filler words.

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?

Given that the schema has no descriptions and there is no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: the required sport parameter is not mentioned, the meaning of an empty grade is unclear, and there is no statement of how results are scoped or grouped. It provides useful tier context but is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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%, so the description needed to explain both parameters. It references the possible grade values, which partially maps to the grade parameter, but it never explains the required sport parameter or how grade is used as a filter. The default grade behavior is also left undocumented.

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 clearly identifies the resource as settled prop grades and gives a concrete taxonomy of possible values (hit, miss, push, pending, error). It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', but the meaning is specific enough to distinguish it from a generic results endpoint, even if it doesn't explicitly separate it from siblings like get_props.

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 no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_props or get_player_props. The environment-tier note (Sandbox=30 days, Hobby=90 days, Builder+=full vault) gives useful context about data availability, but it does not help an agent choose this tool or avoid it in favor of another.

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