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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing permission-gated data ('if the person has let this assistant read them') and how finished/stopped runs are represented (ended set, unreached steps marked notReached).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary return content and followed by edge-case behavior. The phrasing 'each done, in hand or ahead' is slightly literary and less precise than plain status terminology, a minor cost.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does: ordered steps, notes, values, ended flag, and notReached marking. Combined with full annotation coverage and a documented single parameter, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The run's id'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup hints beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a single run ('One run's steps') and enumerates what is returned: ordered steps, notes, and values. The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from list_runs, but no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 only implied by the content description; there is no statement of when to call this versus get_history, list_runs, or get_routine. An agent can infer it reads a single run's current state, but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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