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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the runs:read authorization scope and the nature of the returned data (completion status, cache-hit counts). It doesn't cover error behavior for invalid/missing run IDs, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero padding, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage hint plus scope requirement following in a natural order.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, and auth scope adequately. It stops short of describing possible status values or the shape of the cache statistics, which would have made it fully self-contained.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents run_id fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 the detailed status and cache-hit statistics of a single run'), and the singular 'single run' plus the required run_id cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_runs/get_site tools.

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?

Gives a clear use case: checking whether a run created by warm_site has completed and how many URLs were cache-served. It does not explicitly name list_runs as the alternative for enumerating runs, so it falls short of the top-band when/when-not framing.

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