read_result_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the 409 error for incomplete runs and the constraint that only certain datasets can be fetched via read_ec_results. It does not mention auth/rate limits, but it is a read-only operation implied by the name and 'Returns'; still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the summary contents, followed by a usage recommendation and a cross-reference to a related tool. No fluff; every sentence serves a purpose (what, when, related tool).

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description provides purpose, usage timing, an error condition, and a pointer to related tool restrictions. It is sufficiently complete for a 1-parameter read tool with a rich output schema.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (token) with a description already referencing start_run. The tool description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter; it only reinforces the cross-reference to start_run. Baseline 3 applies due to 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 an overall summary of a completed run, listing specific contents (counts, per-keyword/source overview, correlation chart, available EC datasets). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_run_status (status only), read_social_results (detailed social data), and read_ec_results (EC-specific data).

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?

Explicitly recommends using this as the 'Best first step when fetching results' and gives a when-not-to-use condition (409 if run incomplete). It also directs users to read_ec_results for specific dataset access, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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