Get a fan-out operation result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by stating that the read includes 'per-channel partial failures,' which informs the agent about a potential and important aspect of the response. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, efficiently front-loaded with the core action 'Read a persisted operation' followed by a valuable detail. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, a straightforward read operation, and an output schema exists, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It mentions the key detail of partial failures which is important for a fan-out operation. It could arguably include more about the job_id format or partial failure semantics, but these are partially covered by the output schema, so it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'job_id' with no description, and the schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explicitly explain what job_id is or how to obtain it, though the context of 'operation' implies it is an operation ID. This is minimal compensation, so the description adds little meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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's function: 'Read a persisted operation' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing detail ('including per-channel partial failures') that differentiates it from sibling tools like product_get or profile_list, which likely deal with other resources.

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 implies usage: you use this to read a persisted operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit based on the resource type, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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