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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about what the view contains (counters, spend, escalations), which goes beyond annotations, but it does not describe freshness, polling behavior, or error cases.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The second sentence about `tier` names and legacy values is lengthy and disconnected from the actual single-parameter signature, spending words on information an agent cannot act on.

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 the fields the view returns, which is the main completeness win. But for a simple read-only status tool it omits any guidance on polling cadence or how it relates to run_result/list_runs, and the stray tier discussion is irrelevant noise rather than completion.

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 there is only one parameter (run_id), which the schema already documents fully with source hints (start_run, list_runs, search_notes). The description adds no parameter detail and instead introduces a `tier` concept that is not a parameter at all, so it neither helps nor compensates.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource and enumerates the returned view (status, current step, progress counters, spend, escalations), which clearly separates it from run_result and list_runs. However, the second sentence discusses a `tier` id and values like Light/Deep/`premier`/`brief`/`full`/`dissertation` that do not correspond to any parameter in the schema, muddying an otherwise clear statement of purpose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. With siblings like run_result, list_runs, and control_run, the agent must infer that this is the lightweight status-poll tool rather than a result fetcher. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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