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, yet the description still adds value: 'authorized' conveys an access-scoping requirement and 'Does not spend credits or publish' explicitly rules out side effects. It also discloses return content ('generated text results', 'Publinio link to review media').

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the no-side-effects guarantee follows immediately. Every clause 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema handling return structure, the description only needs to frame purpose and behavior, which it does well, including a hint at returned content. The one gap is that the two required parameters are never explained.

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?

Both required parameters (brandId, runId) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry their meaning but does not. 'One authorized automation run' loosely implies runId identifies the run and 'authorized' hints at brandId scoping, but neither parameter's format or role is clarified.

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 ('Read one authorized automation run') and scopes it to a single run, which naturally distinguishes it from the sibling list_automation_runs and the definition-level get_automation. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read one ... run' and the constraint that it 'Does not spend credits or publish', which signals a safe inspection call. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_automation or list_automation_runs, so the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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