result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says to 'get' a result, but does not explain behavior for pending, failed, invalid, or inaccessible jobs, nor what the result contains or whether the operation is read-only. The word 'accessible' promises a condition but never elaborates on it.

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 focused sentence with no filler, tautology, or redundant detail. It front-loads the action and resource and stays appropriately minimal for a tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the return value, error cases, job lifecycle, or when a result is 'accessible.' Given sibling tools like wait and status, more context is needed for an agent to correctly sequence calls.

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%, but the description explicitly references 'by job ID,' which maps directly to the single required job_id parameter. For a one-parameter tool, this is sufficient semantic clarification, even though it does not describe format conventions or value provenance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get an accessible job result by job ID.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and ties it to the only input, distinguishing it from siblings like status, list, or wait. The word 'accessible' hints at a scoping condition, but the core purpose is 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as status, wait, or list. The only implicit signal is that the caller must already have a job_id, but there is no stated workflow, no exclusion, and no mention of prerequisites or when the result becomes available.

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