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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses determinism, absence of a model call, and access-level behavior (full vs. public view). It omits error/not-found behavior, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core retrieval behavior, then details output shape, gives a concrete use case, and closes with the deterministic note. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists exactly what fields are returned in each access scenario and explains when to use the tool. Minor gaps like missing error handling keep it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the single run_id parameter. It only restates 'by id' and adds no format, source, or usage detail beyond what the parameter name already implies. This is a weak point given the low schema coverage.

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 a single run by ID and distinguishes it from siblings by describing the full view for own runs versus a public view for others' runs. It also adds a differentiator ('Deterministic — no model call') that separates it from model-backed tools.

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 description explicitly says 'This is where to look when run_state.previous_runs_on_target names a run', which gives a concrete trigger for use. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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