getResult

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: in-memory storage, 15-minute TTL, oldest-first eviction under memory pressure, a structured result_not_found error, the 10 MB output-size cap, and authentication requirements. This is context the annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then moves through storage behavior, error handling, and auth. It is longer than average, but every sentence provides distinct information needed to call the tool reliably; no filler is present.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description covers the result semantics (full vs. truncated), error behavior, storage lifecycle, size cap, and how to regenerate results. The single parameter is fully explained, leaving no critical gap in the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 100% and the schema already documents result_id as coming from a queryData ok result. The description goes beyond this by explaining the lifecycle of that id (expiry, eviction, regeneration) and what happens if the id is invalid. This adds actionable meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full stored result of an earlier queryData call by its result_id') and contrasts it with the truncated preview from queryData. It explicitly names the sibling tool it depends on and the condition under which it is relevant, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool ('Use it when queryData returned truncated: true') and provides the alternative action when the result_id is unavailable: re-run the original queryData request. It also clarifies that the tool takes no other parameters, which thins the decision space for an agent.

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