get_result_set_by_run_id

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about partial readiness (is_ready flag), error conditions (expired IDs return 404), and that sorting is unsupported. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses emoji and bold for clarity. However, it contains incomplete sentences (e.g., 'This endpoint can be used to…') and a stray backtick, reducing professionalism. It could be more concise by removing redundant phrases like 'Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account.'

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?

The description explains key response attributes (is_ready, run_id_end) and error handling, but lacks details about pagination behavior (how page and page_size affect results) and the full response structure. Given no output schema, more completeness is expected for a data retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the fact that segmentId and runId are path parameters and can expire, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for page and page_size. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool returns a 'Match Some result-set' and specifies it is read-only via emoji and text. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which helps identify its function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_result_set_by_id', missing an opportunity for differentiation.

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 provides guidance on when to retry or alert support based on response attributes, and notes sorting is unsupported. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_result_set_by_id or other segment-related tools, leaving usage context implicit.

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