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 useful behavioral context—billing status is reported, successful runs include results, and the operation is free ([무료]). However, it does not disclose failure behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements, so it adds moderate value above 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 consists of three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words: purpose, result behavior, and cost. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information comes 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-only tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it states what is checked, what is returned on success, and that it is free. The only notable gap is lack of guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, but that does not prevent correct invocation.

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 1 parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents run_id. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema coverage is high.

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 purpose: checking execution status and billing status of a Skill run, and notes that successful runs also return results. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_skill or run_skill implicitly by focusing on a specific run's status. It lacks an explicit sibling differentiation statement, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_skill, cancel_skill_run, or search_skills. It implies polling a run after run_skill, but only the schema parameter description mentions run_skill, not the tool description itself. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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