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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return-state domain (queued/running with progress/done/failed), which is real behavioral information. However it omits whether this is a pure read, whether "progress" is a percentage or message, whether terminal states are permanent, and any polling or rate-limit guidance.

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 a single front-loaded fragment with zero filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than economy. Every word earns its place, yet far too few words are present for the tool's role.

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 one-parameter status check with no output schema and no annotations, the state enumeration is the minimum an agent needs to interpret a response. Still missing are the response shape behind those states, polling expectations, and any error behavior for an invalid run_id.

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 0% and the description never mentions run_id, so no meaning is added beyond the bare integer type. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from being a 1, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Run status" essentially restates the tool name, but the enumeration (queued | running (+progress) | done | failed) makes the purpose concrete enough to distinguish it from result-fetching siblings like backtest_report. It never states a verb or says what a "run" is, so the reader still infers the operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after run_backtest, how often to poll while running, or why one would pick this over backtest_report or list_runs. The reader must infer the lifecycle position from the status vocabulary alone.

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