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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it doesn't say what happens when a run has no predecessor (empty result? error?), whether lineage is a single ancestor or a chain, or how much history is returned.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the returned information. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 lineage/read tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should clarify the shape of the result and the meaning of find_id. It states the two things retrieved but leaves the agent guessing about result structure and edge cases.

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?

The single required parameter find_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no help on what identifier to supply or where to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Reads') and specifies the resource: the request version a run used plus the earlier run it continued. That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_find, which returns the run itself. Minor vagueness comes from switching between 'request', 'run', and the tool's own 'find' terminology, but the intent is legible.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_find or get_find_decisions, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid find_id from a prior run. The agent must infer that this is a follow-up call for provenance tracing.

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