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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: access scope (your runs or anyone's public run) and that the response includes a link to the full report.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the sibling routing hint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (headline numbers plus a report link). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the runId format/provenance left implicit.

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 coverage is 0% for the single runId parameter, so the schema itself explains nothing. The description does state the run is fetched 'by id', which gives minimal meaning to the parameter, but it never explains the id's format or where the agent obtains it.

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 specific verb and resource ('the headline numbers of one saved run by id') and bounds the scope ('yours, or anyone's public one'). It also names the sibling tools that cover a different granularity, so an agent can distinguish it from get_trades and get_equity_curve without opening a schema.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: this tool for headline numbers, get_trades and get_equity_curve for detail. That is a clear when-to-use-alternative rule, though it does not state exclusions or prerequisites for this tool itself.

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