Get Results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well for return content: it names the unified report, inline [src_N] citations, sourceRegistry, follow-on suggestions, and cost breakdown. It also explains the includeClaimsJson parameter effect, though it omits auth, error, and readiness behaviors.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose and return shape are front-loaded, followed by the optional parameter hint.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description compensates by explaining the main return payload and its components. It gives enough context for an agent to understand what will come back from a completed job.

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. The description mentions includeClaimsJson but only reiterates a subset of what the schema already documents and says nothing about includeProviderReports.

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 (Get) and resource (synthesized results of a completed research job), clearly scoping it to the post-completion retrieval phase. It differentiates from siblings like research and research_status by output type and job state, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'completed research job,' but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus research_status, follow_up, or search_claims. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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