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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the includeInsights default behavior, which is already in the schema, and says nothing about pagination, size limits, or what happens when the lookup key resolves to nothing.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the lookup mechanism. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented schema, this is nearly sufficient: it covers the action, scope, and both lookup keys. It is mildly thin on what 'details' and 'insights' actually return, though the absence of an output schema makes that only a minor 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the dual lookup-key semantics (run ID vs session ID) but adds no precedence rules or format/example beyond what the schema already states, and it ignores customerId and includeInsights entirely.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (run) with an explicit scope qualifier ('full details ... including insights') and two documented lookup keys. It is distinguishable from list_runs and get_run_insights, though it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

It explains the two ways to look up a run (Converra run ID vs external session ID), which is useful usage context, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling read tools (get_run_insights, get_run_finding_context, get_worst_run, list_runs). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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