get_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Immutable' and 'completed' hint that the artifact is final (vs. an in-progress job), but there is nothing about permissions, what happens if the id refers to an unfinished job, or error behavior for unknown ids.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than tight.

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, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple one-param getter. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented id parameter, the definition falls short of what an agent needs to distinguish it from the many other analysis-retrieval siblings.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains what analysis_id is, its format, or where to obtain it. The only semantic hint is that it retrieves one analysis/report.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (position analysis or completed game report), and the 'immutable'/'completed' qualifiers distinguish it from the live-job siblings. It does not name get_progressive_analysis or get_analysis_job, so an agent must still infer which of the several analysis getters applies.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusion of alternatives, despite many sibling getters (get_progressive_analysis, get_analysis_job, get_analysis_metrics). The agent is left to infer that this is the completed/immutable report fetch rather than a running-job poll.

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