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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful interpretation context beyond annotations: 'Pass is limited to each check's claim; missing review is not approval' warns the agent not to over-read a passing result. It stops short of explaining the report's structure, but it meaningfully extends what the annotations convey.

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 short sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse but earns its place as a caveat, though it is slightly cryptic in 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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits what the stored report contains (per-check claims/status) and how the agent should consume it, leaving the interpretation caveat as the only substantive guidance.

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 sole 'id' parameter is never mentioned in the description. Even though one trivial param lowers the burden, the description does not clarify whether 'id' identifies the run, the report, or a check, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 states a verb (Read) and a resource ('the caller's stored check report'), scoping it to the caller's own data. However, it never ties 'check report' back to the tool name 'get_verification_run' or distinguishes this from siblings like get_verification_review, get_verification_artifact, and find_verification_checks, leaving an agent to infer which retrieval tool applies.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance. With several sibling read tools (get_verification_review, get_verification_artifact, find_verification_checks), the description does not say when this run report is the right target versus those alternatives.

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