get_search_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses pagination support via offset/limit and clarifies the meaning of the two result types. It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites like job completion, but the output schema covers return format. The added context about aggregated results goes beyond the raw 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. It consists of three concise sentences covering purpose, result_type guidance, and pagination. No filler or redundant content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple fetch tool with a comprehensive schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main use, the key parameter choice, and pagination. It slightly omits the prerequisite of a completed search job, but this is implied by 'from a search job' and the presence of sibling tools for status checking.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for result_type by explaining when to use 'messages' vs 'records', which is not fully captured in the schema's generic description. It also reinforces the pagination parameters (offset/limit) in context, adding value beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch results from a search job', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_logs (initiating a search) and get_search_status (status checks). It also specifies the two result types (messages vs records), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clear contextual guidance on using the result_type parameter ('Use messages for raw log lines, records for aggregated results'), which helps the agent choose the right mode. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool relative to siblings (e.g., after a search job is complete) or when not to use it, though this is largely implied.

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