splunk_search_results

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. It does disclose that running jobs are allowed (implying possibly partial/incomplete result sets), but says nothing about job/results expiry, result caps, or what happens when offset exceeds available results — all material for a paginated retrieval tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact three-line Args block; nothing is padded or repeated. The Args section partially restates schema fields but earns its place given zero schema descriptions.

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 shape need not be described, and purpose plus all three parameters are covered. What's missing is operational context for a stateful, expiring resource — job lifetime, paging strategy, and result-size limits — which matters 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only source of parameter meaning; it usefully expands 'sid' to 'Search Job ID' and explains offset/count. It adds no constraints though — no max count, no note that offset is ignored/zero-indexed relative to result set, and the schema's 100/0 defaults are the only numeric guidance.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve paginated results') and ties it to a Search Job, which distinguishes it from job-control siblings like splunk_search_status or splunk_search_cancel. It does not, however, differentiate from the closest alternatives (splunk_search_preview, splunk_search_events, splunk_export_search_results), so an agent still has to 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?

'for a completed or running Search Job' implies the prerequisite (a job must exist, sid required) but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. splunk_search_preview or splunk_export_search_results, and no statement about what to do when the job is not yet done or has expired.

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