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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral content beyond them: the response carries a full audit trail, but the budget plan is only available in the start response when budgetUsd was supplied — a non-obvious scope limitation an agent could otherwise mis-assume.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return contract and followed by the important exclusion. The colon-clause about the budget plan is slightly clause-heavy but earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so for the two most relevant fields (audit trail present, budget plan absent). Nothing essential for a correct single-record read 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'id' is the numeric run ID from list_autopilot_runs. The description adds nothing further about the ID, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 — 'Returns one autopilot run including its full audit trail' — and explicitly carves out what it does not return (the budget plan). That is enough to distinguish it from the plural list_autopilot_runs, though the sibling is never named in the prose.

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 closing 'Use it to check progress' implies a polling/progress-check scenario but gives no explicit when-not condition and names no alternative for listing or for retrieving the budget plan. The selection guidance is only weakly implied.

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