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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds that results include credits reserved, charged or refunded, which hints at billing side effects, but says nothing about auth, staleness, or polling frequency. No contradiction with 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?

One front-loaded sentence, no filler, purpose stated before the payload description. Nothing is wasted.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the definition is nearly complete. The only shortfall is the absence of guidance on polling cadence or what to do when a run is still in progress, which matters for a status-check tool.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying the either-or semantics ('by run id or collection id'), which is hard to extract from the convoluted negated-anyOf constraint in the schema.

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 (Returns) and resource (live status of a buyer search run) plus the two accepted identifiers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling exim__run__summary, but 'live status ... progress, counts' versus 'summary' is readily distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'live status' suggests polling an in-flight run, which an agent can infer. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., run__summary once the run completes).

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