get_job_results_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns a preview and stats, but does not disclose if it's read-only, permission requirements, or what 'stats' includes. Minimal behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence) and to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate line for stats). No waste, but borderline too terse.

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 simple schema (1 param) and presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it fails to mention what 'stats' includes, error cases, or any non-obvious behavior. Leaves gaps for a tool that returns results.

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%, and the description adds no information about the job_id parameter beyond the schema's type and title. No format or constraints are mentioned.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'result preview (5 rows) and stats', and distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status (status) and get_query_details (details). The concrete detail '5 rows' adds precision.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like export_results_to_csv or analyze_results. The description implies usage for a quick preview, but lacks exclusions or context.

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