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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing that long text is truncated to the first 400 characters and that events are returned in execution order — a real behavioral constraint. It does not discuss failure modes for a missing/expired run id, which keeps it from a full 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the return shape and uses a single dense sentence plus one clarifying sentence on truncation, with no filler. It is a bit of a run-on enumeration, but each clause carries distinct information about a different event type.

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 explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly: event kinds, their fields (node, ms, tokens, command, success, characters), and the truncation rule. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so all four parameters (including `run_id`, `workbook`, and the two analytics-only fields) are already documented in the schema. The description restates that run ids come from `list_runs`, matching the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource — reconstructing everything one run did, in order — and enumerates the event kinds (`portal_returned`, `tool_returned`, `drafted`). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `list_runs`, which only provides run ids. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces 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?

It supplies the key prerequisite chain by naming `list_runs` as the source of run ids, which is real context for invoking the tool correctly. It stops short of explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance (e.g. use this for diagnosing a single run rather than enumerating runs), so it is strong context rather than full routing.

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