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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing what the payload contains (step outputs, errors, durations), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler or redundancy. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully previews the return content, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It is slightly thin on size/pagination behavior for large runs, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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% on the single flowRunId parameter and the schema itself explains where to obtain the ID. The description adds no format or source detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (get results of a flow run) and enumerates what the result contains: step-by-step outputs, errors, durations. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the listing sibling, though it never names ap_list_runs the way the schema does.

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?

Usage is only implied: retrieving detailed results for a run implies a prior listing step, and the schema description (not the tool description) supplies the 'use ap_list_runs to find it' routing. There is no explicit when-to-use versus ap_list_runs, ap_retry_run, or ap_test_flow.

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