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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares this a read operation and explains the non-obvious blocking behavior of wait_seconds (waits up to 120s for a change before returning). It also discloses what the response contains, compensating for the absent output schema. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the wait can time out returning an unchanged status.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The return payload is front-loaded and the blocking parameter gets its own explicit clause, so nothing needs to be re-read.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the essential behavior including the blocking wait and the shape of the result. The remaining gap is the unstated meaning of run_id and any timeout/permission behavior, which is minor but real.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives solid semantics for wait_seconds, including the 120-second cap and the 'wait for change' behavior, but run_id is never explained beyond the implicit 'the handoff to read' — it is left to the schema's uuid format to convey.

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 states a clear verb (read) and resource (a handoff/run) and enumerates what is returned: status, result on completion, failure reason, or a waiting reason. The only friction is terminology: the tool is named get_run but the description consistently calls the object a 'handoff', which the agent must infer maps to the run_id.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: poll this to check status, or pass wait_seconds to block for a change. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like wait_for_approval, list_events, or handoff_task, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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