solver_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden: it identifies the operation as a GET retrieval, conditions availability on completion/retention, and describes the response contents including the conditional provenance. It could add error or expiry behavior, but for a read-only fetch the key traits are present.

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 information-dense sentence with no filler: action, endpoint, completion/retention condition, and return contents. The parenthetical endpoint placement keeps the main purpose front-loaded.

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 a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and when it is applicable. It could be more explicit about retention-period behavior and non-completed executions, but these are largely inferable from 'COMPLETED' and 'retention-bound.'

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 provides only the name and type for execution_id, so the description must add meaning. It does so by tying the parameter to the {id} in the endpoint and to a completed execution's result. It does not specify where to obtain the ID or its format, but the single self-named parameter makes this sufficient.

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 a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('result of a COMPLETED execution'), and it lists the return contents: final text and model provenance. It is clearly distinct from status/receipt siblings in substance, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 clearly scopes usage to COMPLETED executions and hints at a retention window, which gives strong context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the completed-execution condition is sufficient guidance for typical use.

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