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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the full audit trail and that the budget plan is absent, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe pagination, size, or other runtime traits; with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core return value, then clarifies exclusions, then states the use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with a single fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the return (full audit trail) and an important omission (budget plan). It could mention return format nuances, but the annotations and schema cover the rest adequately.

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%, with the 'id' parameter fully documented as the numeric run ID from list_autopilot_runs. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Returns one autopilot run including its full audit trail.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly scoping out the budget plan, which comes from start_autopilot_run and plan_autopilot. An agent can identify what this tool does and what it doesn't without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use it to check progress.' It also distinguishes behavior from start_autopilot_run and plan_autopilot regarding the budget plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus list_autopilot_runs or other status-related siblings like get_inbox_placement_run.

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