avl.results

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable runtime semantics: limit range, zero-based index filtering, dotted-field syntax, FIELD_NOT_AVAILABLE for missing tables, and artifact path availability by default. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then add concrete examples and edge-case behavior. There is no wasted wording, and the filter examples are useful rather than decorative.

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 tool with no output schema and five parameters, the description covers a lot: saved-result access, pagination limits, filter syntax, missing-table behavior, and artifact availability. It is slightly incomplete on offset semantics and explicit job_id guidance, but it is still strong enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It explains limit (1-100), fields (dotted paths with examples), and indices (zero-based). job_id is only implied as the result selector and offset is implied by 'Page', but not explicitly documented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Page') and resource ('saved background or run/sweep results'), then explicitly contrasts with 'without running AVL'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like avl.run and avl.sweep.

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?

It clearly states the context: use this tool to page saved results rather than running AVL. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives like avl.status or avl.inspect, so it provides clear context but not full when/when-not routing.

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