get_project_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, pagination limits beyond the parameter name, or failure behavior for invalid project IDs.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a compact Args section. There is no redundant text, though the Args formatting is slightly terse.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the two parameters are at least described in the text. However, the absence of annotations leaves gaps around read-only semantics, pagination, and when to choose this tool over siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that project_id is a UUID in Pytch and that limit controls how many contacts to fetch, covering both parameters meaningfully, though it omits the default limit value and any maximum bounds.

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 retrieval action and enumerates the returned data: media contacts, pitch status, and response activity for a project. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_journalists and list_pr_projects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a project' and the required project_id, making it clear this is for fetching results tied to an existing project. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_pr_projects or search_journalists, nor any exclusions.

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