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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating runs retain their original support_case_id and that historical issues are included, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or volume.

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 resource scope and followed by the actionable ID guidance. No filler; the only weakness is that the second sentence's value is buried at the end rather than signaled up front.

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 usefully enumerates what is returned (runs, plans, approvals, receipts, historical issues) and flags the ID provenance needed for follow-up writes. Missing only list-behavior details such as pagination or result caps, which is a modest gap for a three-required-param read 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 67%: 'company' and 'environment' are documented inline, 'case' is not. The description partially compensates by framing results as spanning cases and noting the run's original support_case_id, but it never explains what the 'case' parameter itself accepts (a UUID of which case type) or how it scopes results.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource set (investigation runs, saved plans, approval state, execution receipts) scoped to a verified customer's case. It is distinguishable from sibling summer_investigations_request (a write/trigger) by being a read, but it never names siblings or clarifies the boundary against summer_runs_list.

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 gives downstream guidance ('use that ID for write operations and original run evidence'), which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to summer_runs_list or summer_investigations_request as alternatives. Usage is implied by the resource description rather than stated.

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