get_expert_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'once complete' hinting at async behavior, but does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, rate limits, or the meaning of search status values. Adequate but incomplete for a polling endpoint.

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 precise sentences with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with action and resource, followed by return details. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return: status and an array of experts with profiles and summaries. It does not detail the exact structure of profiles or status enum, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is mostly complete. Could improve by clarifying status values or pagination.

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?

Only one parameter 'id' with schema description 'Expert search ID'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra context about where the ID comes from or format constraints, so no additional value beyond 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 'Get results for an expert search by ID' and details the return content: search status and array of recommended experts with profiles and summaries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'expert_search' (creation) and 'list_expert_searches' (listing).

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 the tool is for retrieving results after an expert search is initiated, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., after creating a search, polling for completion) or contrast with alternatives like polling vs. waiting. Lacks explicit guidance.

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