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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly spends its space elsewhere — disclosing that secrets are redacted in plain and common encoded forms, which is non-obvious and important for interpreting the payload. It does not cover behavior for a missing/expired runId, 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?

Two tight sentences: the return contract is front-loaded and the redaction caveat follows. No filler, redundancy, or repeated annotation content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the redaction behavior, which is enough to interpret the response. But for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the absence of any parameter guidance leaves a meaningful 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 description coverage is 0% and neither websiteId nor runId is described in the description or schema. The description only hints that a run identifier is needed; the relationship between websiteId and the run, and ID formats, are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Returns one run') and enumerates the returned content (input, output, console output, outgoing requests), which clearly separates it from websiteFunctions_runs_list. The sibling relationship is only implicit through 'one run' rather than named directly.

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 singular-retrieval framing implies you fetch details for a known run, but the description never says when to prefer this over websiteFunctions_runs_list or where a runId comes from. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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