get_council_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explaining the status values (running | done | error), that full result comes when done, and that listing returns metadata only. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a compact breakdown of the two usage modes. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description discloses key return aspects (status values, full result when done). It fully explains both invocation modes and remains focused. It could mention error semantics more deeply, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a sibling for status, this is adequately complete.

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% with descriptions for both list and job_id. The description adds semantic nuance by clarifying the relationship: omitting job_id is equivalent to setting list=true, and the default behavior (omit both) results in listing recent jobs. This extra integration goes beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('background council run started with ask_council_async'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the async origin and explicitly describing two usage modes (fetch by job_id or list recent jobs), which separates it from ask_council or council_status.

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 clear context: use when you have a job_id from ask_council_async, or omit job_id/list to see recent jobs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when to avoid this tool, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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