get_research_task_result

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, specifying that the tool is for polling and that it returns a status field that reaches terminal states. It does not mention rate limits or other constraints.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses simple, direct language.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that the result contains the research data, but for a polling tool the implicit retrieval is acceptable.

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?

The single parameter 'task_id' is already well-described in the schema (unique identifier). The description does not add further meaning, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met.

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 'Poll for research task status and result' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'research task' as opposed to 'browsing task' in get_browsing_task_result.

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 provides explicit polling guidance: 'Call until status is "succeeded" or "failed".' This gives the agent a clear usage pattern. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives.

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