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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns JSON with fields like run status, worker, timestamps, etc., and suggests a subsequent workflow (e.g., follow with results, logs). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with sections (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, RETURNS, WORKFLOW) and front-loads the main purpose. It is appropriately concise for the complexity, though slightly verbose with the Chinese trigger text.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, return format, and follow-up actions. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where to obtain the run_id ('Obtain from run_worker, list_worker_runs, or get_last_worker_run.'), which aids correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detail for a specific CoreClaw worker run by run_id.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on retrieving details for a single run by its identifier, and the 'WHEN TO USE' section reinforces this.

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 description explicitly provides when-to-use criteria (user provides run ID, wants status/cost/detail) and when-not-to-use (avoid public search for private data, avoid internal APIs). This helps the agent select the correct tool among many related siblings.

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