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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, closed-world read. The description adds value by disclosing that the final output is paged and that approvals, follow-ups, and a tool timeline are part of the payload. It does not explain wait_seconds long-poll behavior or how include_timeline changes the response, both of which materially affect how an agent drives this tool.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the resource up front and the fetched content listed after, with zero filler. The fragment style ('One teammate or operator run: ...') sacrifices a little readability but wastes no tokens.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does well to enumerate the returned sections. However, for a read tool with a long-poll parameter and a cursor, an agent needs to know how to paginate and when to set wait_seconds; those gaps prevent the definition from being self-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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only indirectly gestures at cursor ('paged') and include_timeline ('tool timeline'); workspace, run, and especially wait_seconds (0–45 long poll) are never explained. This leaves the most operationally important parameter undocumented.

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 names the resource precisely — a single teammate/operator run — and enumerates the fetched content (status, final output, approvals, follow-ups, tool timeline). That implicitly separates it from agent_runs_list, which handles multiple runs. It stops short of a clean 'get one run by ID' framing, so the verb is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus agent_runs_list, agent_runs_start, or agent_runs_cancel. The agent must infer from the singular/plural naming and the readOnlyHint that this is the detail-fetch path. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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