Arsenkin: get result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value with the size warning ('can be large') and the cost disclosure ('Cost: free'), neither of which appears in structured fields. It does not mention potential truncation or pagination for large results, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short clauses: what it does, the size caveat, the sibling routing, and cost. Front-loaded purpose, zero filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. Given the remaining gaps are only job_id provenance, the description covers routing, size expectations, and cost — enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Single required `job_id` with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema adds no meaning. The phrase 'your job' weakly implies job_id comes from a prior submit call, but the description never states the identifier's origin, format, or where to obtain it. Baseline adequacy rather than genuine added semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the stored result of your job') and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, `arsenkin_result_table` and `arsenkin_export_result`. An agent can tell exactly which result-retrieval tool to pick without opening a 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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use this for small jobs, `arsenkin_result_table` for compact tables, `arsenkin_export_result` for files. This is when-to-use plus named alternatives, not inference.

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