Get a fan-out operation result

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context about per-channel partial failures, which is not covered by annotations and helps the agent understand potential response complexity. No contradiction with annotations.

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 wasted words. The description conveys the essential purpose in one line and earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with one self-explanatory parameter and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a notable behavioral detail. The lack of explicit parameter semantics is a minor gap, but the overall context is sufficient for correct 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?

The only parameter, job_id, has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explicitly explain its meaning or format. While the name strongly implies it identifies the operation, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Read a persisted operation' with the specific detail of 'per-channel partial failures.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_get, which target products rather than operations.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve a fan-out operation result) and even highlights a specific use case (checking per-channel partial failures). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling names.

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