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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (exact stored JSON plus verify_url and report_sha256) and defines what report_sha256 actually hashes, which is verifiable behavioral context. It does not say what happens if the run is not yet complete.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with what is returned before the alternative-tool routing. The parenthetical defining report_sha256 earns its space by making the returned field interpretable.

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 usefully documents the key return fields, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (incomplete run, unknown run_id) rather than core invocation information.

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 single run_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'of a complete run' implicitly ties run_id to a run identifier, but no format, source, or example is given, so the description only marginally compensates 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full signed report of a complete run') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_findings by contrasting full vs. compact views. An agent can tell it apart from get_findings without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use get_findings for the compact view'), giving a clear condition for choosing between the two. It stops short of stating exclusions such as what happens when the run is not complete, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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