get_run_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the default truncation at max_rows_per_query, the presence of truncated: true and row_count in results, and warns that null can produce hundreds of MB. Permission/auth requirements and pagination beyond truncation are not covered.

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 core behavior — default to latest run, truncation, how to detect and overcome it — is front-loaded in the first two paragraphs. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but each entry still earns its place by adding semantics the schema lacks.

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 enumerated, yet the description still names the key truncation fields an agent must act on. Combined with the default-run behavior and the size warning for large fetches, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 must compensate, and it does for run_token (specific run vs. latest succeeded) and max_rows_per_query (default 500, null to fetch everything). report_token is only glossed as 'The report token,' which adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get results from a report run') and clarifies the default scope ('Defaults to the latest run'). It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from siblings like list_report_runs and get_report, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear context for when to omit run_token (latest succeeded run) versus supplying a specific one, and explicitly says to re-call with a higher limit or null when truncated. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over list_report_runs or get_report, so exclusions are absent.

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