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

The readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read. The description adds two pieces of real context beyond them: the free-cost signal and the mode switch where supplying runId returns run detail rather than a list. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens with an invalid runId.

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 the primary action first, the runId behavior second, and the cost tag parenthesized at the end. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed 【策略】 tag adds little for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves the return shape entirely unspecified — an agent does not know what fields a run record contains or how the list case is ordered or bounded. For a free read-only lookup this is tolerable, but it is incomplete for deciding how to consume the result.

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 100%, with both limit and runId documented in the schema itself, so this is the baseline case. The description echoes the runId-means-detail semantics without adding format, range, or default details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (query my strategy factory run records) and even states the dual listing/detail behavior. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the very similar sibling platform_factory_run, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to call.

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 runId clause implies the when-to-use split (omit for a list, pass for one run's detail), which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over platform_factory_run or other history tools, and no note on paging behavior for the list case.

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