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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds some behavioral detail by listing the response content and scoping to 'your' runs, but it doesn't mention error behavior or whether a run must be fully complete before results are available. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the purpose immediately and concisely lists the full set of relevant data returned, with no redundant words or restating of the tool title.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, read-only annotations, and absence of output schema, this description is largely enough: it tells the agent what to use and what data will be available. A small gap is that it doesn't mention whether a run must exist first or how to identify the run beyond run_id, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a one-parameter read operation.

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 schema contains only run_id with type string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain how to obtain run_id or what values are valid. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no real semantic guidance beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Read', names the resource ('Switch Editor agent runs'), and enumerates exactly what is read (progress, checks, approval quote, revision, render result). This clearly distinguishes get_editor_run from siblings like approve_editor_run or cancel_editor_run, which perform mutations.

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 makes the use case obvious: inspect an existing editor run's progress and outputs. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it is the read tool for editor runs, not a creation or mutation tool.

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