Query Results

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are 'bounded', artifacts come back as a paginated page, and summaries appear either on explicit request or as a fallback when no observations were declared. That fallback rule is a non-obvious trait an agent could not learn from annotations or schema alone.

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 with the return contents then the parameter guidance, with no filler. The opening enumeration is a long comma-chained list and the second sentence packs three clauses, but each clause carries operative information.

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-field description is technically redundant, yet the description stays complete about paging, the summaries fallback, and the required job id coming from run_study. The missing piece is a stated relationship to inspect_job and list_jobs for a six-parameter tool with many sibling lookups.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes past the schema by explaining parameter interplay — time only matters for observations lacking an explicit time, and limit/cursor page only artifacts, not observations. Those relational semantics are not visible in the per-property descriptions.

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 ('Retrieve bounded evidence') and resource ('for a solver job'), and enumerates the payload it returns: status, convergence, observations, acceptance, output fields, artifact page. An agent knows exactly what it gets back. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling job tools such as inspect_job or list_jobs, so the boundary must be inferred.

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 second sentence gives real usage guidance for parameters ('Pass observations to filter', 'time to select the frame', 'limit/cursor to page artifacts') and for include:['summaries']. But there is no statement of when to call this versus inspect_job, which reads like the closest alternative. Context is implied rather than specified.

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