get_result_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as deprecated and explains its function, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but it could provide more operational context beyond the basic purpose.

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 well-structured and concise: it front-loads the deprecation warning, then states the purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter meaning, and return information. However, it could improve by mentioning any prerequisites or behavioral traits like idempotency, but the deprecation note reduces the need for full operational details.

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, but the description compensates well: it explains 'result_numbers: Reference numbers from search results (e.g., [1, 3, 5]).' This adds meaningful context about what the parameter represents and provides an example, which is valuable since the schema only indicates it's an array of integers. With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, this is above the baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve full opaque IDs for numbered [N] references from search results.' This specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('full opaque IDs'), and scope ('from search results'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_field_info' or 'query_database' beyond mentioning they now accept reference numbers directly.

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 explicit usage guidance: it starts with 'DEPRECATED: query_database and get_field_info now accept [N] reference numbers and field names directly. This tool is no longer needed in the standard workflow.' This clearly states when not to use this tool and names specific alternatives, helping the agent avoid unnecessary calls.

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