get_council_result

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it explains the status values (running/done/error) and that the full result is returned when done. It also clarifies that list=true returns metadata only, which goes beyond the basic read-only annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds actionable information without waste. It is concise yet complete for the tool's complexity.

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, the description provides essential behavioral details about statuses and listing. It could optionally mention error handling specifics, but for a low-complexity tool with two parameters, this is sufficient.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, the description clarifies the relationship between them: job_id for fetching vs. omitting or setting list=true for listing. This adds practical semantics about how the parameters interact.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a background council run started with ask_council_async, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the async context and the ability to list recent jobs.

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 explicitly describes when to pass job_id versus when to omit it or set list=true, giving clear usage conditions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like ask_council for sync, but the context is evident from sibling tool names.

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