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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the exact payload shape and, importantly, what is excluded (findings and evidence), which prevents an agent from assuming full coverage.

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 sentences, no filler, and the returned-contents list is front-loaded before the caveat about separate findings/evidence reads. Every clause earns its place.

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 must convey return values, and it does so by enumerating the run's fields plus the notable omissions. It falls short only on failure behavior (missing/unknown runId) and identifier format.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about runId format, whether it is a UUID versus a path-like identifier, or behavior when the run does not exist — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a persisted editorial run') and enumerates the contents returned (revision, state, inputs, outline, selected finding IDs, omitted reasons, integration gaps). It implicitly distinguishes itself from editorial_list_runs and from the findings/evidence readers, though it never names those siblings 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 second sentence ('Read findings and evidence separately for complete coverage') signals that this tool is partial and that other tools fill the gap, which is useful routing. However, it never names editorial_findings_list or editorial_list_evidence, nor does it say when to prefer this over editorial_list_runs or editorial_apply.

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