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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the response embeds step history rather than just run metadata — but says nothing about pagination, size limits, or error behavior for a missing run.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named before the payload detail; zero redundant or filler 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 tool with full annotation coverage and complete param docs, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description is the only source of return-shape information and provides just one clause (step history). Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 both required params (id, run_id) documented including the aut_xxx format hint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Retrieve") with a specific resource ("one automation run") and adds scope ("with its step history"). This clearly distinguishes it from list-automation-runs, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or clarify versus get-automation/get-automation-stats.

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?

"Retrieve one" hints at single-record lookup versus a list, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., requiring run_id from list-automation-runs), and no routing to alternatives like get-automation or get-automation-step-stats.

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