get_phone_result

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Retrieve' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds the useful context that the operation returns a result from an earlier launch, but it does not disclose behavior around missing, expired, or not-yet-ready results; the annotations already carry much of the safety profile.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core retrieval action and the connection to a previously launched search. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description plus schema sufficiently cover what the tool does and how to identify the correct search. There is no output schema, so exact return shape is unspecified, but the description's 'result' wording provides adequate conceptual completeness; a minor gap is lack of detail on error or not-ready behavior.

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 100%, with the only parameter 'id' documented as the search ID returned by find_phone. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('result of a previously launched phone search'), clearly indicating this is the async result-fetching counterpart to find_phone. It is distinguished from bulk sibling tools by its singular 'phone search' scope, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 usage context is implied: this should be called after a phone search has been launched, since it retrieves a 'previously launched' search result and the id parameter is described as the ID returned from find_phone. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_phones_bulk_result.

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