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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the read returns the request, live progress, and accumulated cost, which implies a status/polling use case and hints the run may still be in flight — useful, but it never says what happens on an unknown id or whether results are stable while running.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but there is no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a usable sketch of the return payload and no more. It omits identifier provenance and whether the response is meaningful mid-run, which are the two things an agent needs to call it correctly in a polling workflow.

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 0% and the description does not explain find_id at all — not its format, nor where an agent obtains one (a create/import call or a list tool). With a single required identifier parameter, one clause about provenance would have fully closed the gap.

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 verb 'Reads' plus the content list ('request, progress and cost') tells an agent what comes back, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the description calls the resource a 'run' while the tool and its parameter are named 'find', and it never distinguishes itself from the large find-related sibling set (get_find_commerce, get_find_decisions, get_find_lineage, export_find, list_find_rows, cancel_find) that a selector would have to choose between.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to poll versus use a list/result tool, and no exclusions pointing to the sibling tools that surface related find data. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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