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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description's only added behavioral signal is the word 'bounded', hinting at capped/summarized context, but it never explains what bounds are applied, whether results are truncated, or how the optional responderRunId changes evidence selection (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 front-loaded sentence with a dense but purposeful list; no filler or restated title. The list of bundled artifacts is long enough to be slightly heavy to parse, but every item conveys distinct 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 does the work of enumerating return contents, which is genuinely useful. It remains incomplete on the 'bounded' contract (size limits, truncation, ordering) and gives no guidance on how the context should be consumed for the review decision, so an agent has the intent but not the full operational picture.

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% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions, including the nuanced responderRunId behavior and the superadmin-only customerId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('grounding context for a run finding') and enumerates exactly what is bundled: transcript, latest insight, prompt snapshot status, architecture context, and dismissed feedback. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like get_run_insights or get_run_step_diagnosis, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'for reviewing a run finding' implies the usage context, and the tool is evidently a read-side companion to the review flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools such as preview_run_finding_prompt_diff or get_run_calibration_review that an agent might confuse it with.

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