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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds substantial operational context: the wait/polling mechanism, the 'no list endpoint' constraint, error recovery steps, and the ~15-minute presigned URL expiry. It enhances transparency without contradicting any 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?

Every sentence carries actionable information: purpose, wait behavior, list limitation, polling pattern, error handling, and URL expiry. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, with 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 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all critical usage aspects: how to wait, when to re-call, how to handle errors, and where to find the output format. It also notes the presigned URL expiry, which is essential for correct follow-up actions. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how wait and waitSeconds interact in polling, emphasizing that environment must match a granted target, and tying runId to the 'no list endpoint' workflow. This is a modest but real increment over 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the state and output of an edit run, distinguishes it from sibling run-getters by specifying 'edit run (edit group)', and notes the absence of a list endpoint, which clarifies its unique role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: keep the run ID because there's no list endpoint, poll with wait:true while running, never re-submit the document, and handle UNAUTHORIZED/NOT_FOUND by re-calling get_me. It also directs re-fetching expired URLs via get_file, leaving no ambiguity about the correct workflow.

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