Get Task Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds behavioral context those cannot: pages are snapshots, cursor is opaque and must not be constructed, refresh requires re-fetching and deduplicating by document ID, and a null cursor does not signal task completion. This is exactly the kind of subtle, non-structured behavior the description should carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then pagination, then completion routing, then refresh/dedup — a logical order. It is dense and every sentence carries information, but the final 'This returns a page, not a complete export' restates the opening scope somewhat, costing a little tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be spelled out, yet the description still orients the agent on key fields (documents[].id, extraction_data, next_cursor). For a paginated, read-only inspection tool the description covers invocation, pagination, refresh, and completion checks thoroughly.

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 coverage is 75% and already documents limit (1-100, default 25), cursor (opaque, never construct), and task_id. The description reinforces how cursor works in practice ('same task_id', 'omit cursor to refresh'), adding operational meaning beyond the schema fields, though limit/task_id semantics add little new.

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 precise verb+resource (inspect a page of documents for a task_id) and immediately scopes it as one page rather than a full export. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming fetch_document_result, fetch_json_results, download_results as consumers of the IDs it returns, and wait_for_task_extraction as the completion authority.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('including while processing'), how to paginate (pass next_cursor as cursor with the same task_id), how to refresh (omit cursor), and where to go for completion status (wait_for_task_extraction). It also warns that next_cursor null ends the snapshot, not processing — a genuine usage pitfall removed.

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