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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context about finished renders carrying renderChecks. The warning about not handing over open findings without disclosure is a meaningful behavioral instruction beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a targeted warning. There is no filler, and the most important information appears first.

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 simple read-style tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key returned fields and an important render-check warning. It leaves minor gaps around run_id sourcing and alternative-tool routing, but is otherwise complete enough to use correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, run_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies it identifies an editor agent run. It does not explain the run_id format or where to obtain it, so it only marginally compensates for the schema 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 description uses a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("one of your Switch Editor agent runs") and enumerates the key outputs. It implicitly separates itself from approve/cancel/run siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative.

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?

It provides no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as approve_editor_run, cancel_editor_run, or run_editor_agent. The only guidance is about handling render findings, not about selecting the tool.

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