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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose what happens if the run is not found, whether it returns full details, or any other runtime behavior. It relies entirely on structured 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 extremely short ('Get an enrichment run'). While it is concise, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks critical details that would make the single sentence useful, such as the key parameter or return behavior. This is similar to the 'Process' example where brevity masks incompleteness.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, clear safety annotations), one might expect a simple description, but this is too minimal. It does not describe what the output looks like, possible error conditions, or how the run ID is used. The annotations and schema do not compensate for the lack of contextual detail. A complete description would at least mention 'by runId' and summarize what an enrichment run is.

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% for the single parameter runId. The description does not explain what runId refers to, how to obtain it, or its format/constraints. With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate but offers no parameter-related information at all. The parameter name is partially self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no semantic value.

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 'Get an enrichment run' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (an enrichment run). It is understandable but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool enrichment_runs-list, which also deals with enrichment runs. The verb 'get' implies a single item retrieval, but no mention of by ID or that this is for a specific run vs listing all runs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves a single run by runId, nor does it reference sibling tools like enrichment_runs-list for listing. No context is provided about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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