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

Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior beyond them: seal verification that refuses edited/truncated files, the merge rule per hypothesis, resume-eligibility rules (no evidence and last attempt failed or deferred by budget), and pinned-input name collision refusal. These are genuine operational facts an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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 dense and front-loads the core action before enumerating behaviors, and each clause carries distinct information. It is long and somewhat run-on, using multiple parentheticals, but little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the description nevertheless covers the safety model, resume logic, and corpus-comparison semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the optional sequences param by explaining it is the current corpus checked against pinned inputs and that a changed pinned input causes a resume refusal. The required run param's origin is also reinforced.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination — read a research run file — and immediately scopes it with 'without running anything', distinguishing it from siblings like run_discovery_programme and resume_research_run. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The phrase 'without running anything' plus 'what resuming would do' clearly places this as the inspection counterpart to resume_research_run, and 'Given the corpus' establishes the optional-corpus condition. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or stating outright exclusions, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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