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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the important authentication/scope constraint 'using the private run capability' beyond the annotations. It does not cover error/rate-limit behavior, but this is a simple read with strong annotation coverage.

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 sentence front-loads the action and the exact state being read, with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every phrase 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 low-complexity read operation with strong annotations and a clear 2-parameter schema, the description covers the essential call context and return scope. It leaves out output shape details, but no output schema exists and the listed state categories give an agent the main expectations.

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 coverage is 50%: clientToken has a detailed schema description while runId has none. The description helps by tying the call to the 'original run' and the private capability, but it does not add substantially new meaning for either parameter beyond what the title and schema already convey.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource/scope: payment, challenge, verdict, and outgoing transfer state for the original run. It also identifies the required private-run capability, making it easy to tell apart from create_run, enroll, and submit_answer.

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 implies a polling use case after a run is created, but it does not state when to prefer poll_run over sibling readers such as get_receipt or get_payment_quote, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage must be inferred from the word 'poll' and the listed state fields.

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