Get results of a run

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the operation is free, and it only reads results already paid for, which matters for an agent deciding whether to poll.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the core action and then the trigger condition and input source. Each sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

No output schema, and the description covers what comes back at a high level (status and results) plus the pagination parameters exist in the schema. For a simple read tool this is close to sufficient, though it doesn't say what a completed vs. still-running status looks like in the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance semantics for run_id ('the run_id printed by the tool that started the run') that the schema only states more tersely. limit/offset are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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?

Specific verb+resource: fetch status and results of an Apify run, explicitly scoped to runs 'started by one of this server's tools'. It also names concrete triggering cases (long-running lead or AI-visibility searches), so an agent can tell it apart from every sibling search tool, which initiate work rather than retrieve it.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it: when a prior tool returned while a run was still in progress, and instructs the agent to pass the run_id from that tool's output. No explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, but the selection condition is unambiguous.

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