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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds integration context (internal inline run view) and a clear directive that agents should not invoke it, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the integration purpose and then the routing instruction. No filler.

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 an internal UI-support tool, the description adequately explains what it is and why an agent should not call it, and it notes `run` returns the result. It leaves parameter behavior unexplained, but the no-call guidance reduces the practical gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (`runId` or `script`). It provides no meaning, format, or usage for the parameters beyond the schema's bare types.

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 resource (a run's progress) and the context (inline run view), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the `run` sibling by saying `run` returns the result. However, the verb 'draw' is unusual and the tool's actual return or behavior is not operationally clear.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent not to call this tool and names the alternative (`run`) that provides the result. This is a clear when-not-to-use rule with an alternative.

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