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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what the run record contains, error behavior for an unknown id, required permissions, or scoping to a workspace/company.

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?

The single substantive sentence is duplicated verbatim, and the opaque hex operation ID plus a pointer to describe_operation consume much of the text without informing tool selection. Short, but the content is noise rather than front-loaded signal.

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 tool with no output schema, a nested query object, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum explain the run resource and the id's meaning. It does neither, so an agent cannot predict the return shape or confidently construct the query parameter.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. The only information conveyed is the ':id' path template, which implies params.id identifies a run; the 'query' object parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 restates the tool name and HTTP path verbatim ('GET /api/accounting/journal-close/runs/:id') without saying what a journal close run is or what the response represents. It technically indicates a read-by-ID operation, but adds nothing beyond the title, and does not distinguish this tool from the several sibling tools with identical 'journal_close_runs_by_id' names.

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, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_accounting_journal_close_runs_110a7b0396175f5089714eca (the list endpoint). The only routing hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which concerns parameter discovery rather than tool selection.

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