get_run_results

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

With no annotations, the description steps up well: it discloses the 60-second long-poll window, the retry loop, the dataset item cap, and the billing implication ('billed to your Apify account like any other run'). It never addresses failure modes for an invalid or expired runId, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return shape and the retry/billing caveats. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the burden and does describe the return (status, total item count, items). Only the error/invalid-run path is unaddressed.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured data. The description adds only marginal semantics by referencing the offset and _maxItems cap; it does not explain runId format or behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) plus the exact resource (status and dataset items of an Actor run) and ties it to runs started by the data tools, which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools that initiate runs. An agent knows immediately this is the follow-up retrieval call.

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?

Gives the triggering scenario explicitly ('for example a run that was still running when its tool call returned') and the retry protocol ('if still running, call again with the same runId'). It does not name a when-not-to-use condition, but the context is unambiguous.

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