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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are only available after completion, but says nothing about polling cadence, rate limits, or error states while pending.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and the timing constraint are stated immediately and nothing 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the result-availability caveat. Marginal gaps remain around interaction with wait_for_script_run, but the output schema handles return-value detail.

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 only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('A script run id (srun_...).'), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents, which is the baseline case.

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 (Read) and resource (a script run's status/result), and clarifies the temporal scope ('once it has finished'). It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like get_run or wait_for_script_run, so an agent must infer the difference is script-run-specific.

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 'its result once it has finished' implies this is for checking a run that may still be in progress, which hints at polling behavior. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus wait_for_script_run or get_run, and no exclusions given.

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