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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (loops, halted flag, only the last 10 steps — an implicit truncation) and that results are partial ('so far'), but says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the last-10 window is configurable.

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 resource and then the three things returned; no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed clause list is slightly dense rather than optimized for scanning.

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 must convey returns, and it does so at a high level (loops, halted status, last 10 steps). It is adequate for a simple single-parameter read, but omits any detail about loop fields or what a 'loop' contains.

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% and there is a single required run_id, so the schema already explains id stability and reuse across sub-agents. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific verb (Show) and resource (a run's loops, halt status, last 10 steps), which is far more informative than the bare name loop_status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling check_step, so an agent must infer the boundary between a loop-level view and a step-level check.

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 statement of when to call this versus check_step, usage_and_upgrade, or weekly_report, nor any prerequisite such as 'call this after starting a run'. The relationship to check_step in particular is left entirely to inference.

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