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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: that results are paged with a default of 50 and max 200 rows, and that the tool works against in-flight async runs as well as finished ones.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the paging and async details. Every sentence carries information the caller needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers paging limits and the running/finished distinction. Given the tool's simplicity, what remains is minor, though a note on ordering or row semantics would fully close the loop.

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 100%, so all three parameters (runId, limit, offset) are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates the paging defaults and cap but adds no new semantics such as ordering, row identity, or what 'row' means, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the status, cost and results of one run'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling procli_run (which likely starts a run), so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clause 'Works for finished and still-running (async) runs' gives useful context on applicability, and 'Free' hints at cost considerations. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use this tool, so usage is only implied.

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