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 does add real behavior beyond that: verify_url is only present when a signed report exists, a genuine conditional disclosure. It omits the key behavioral trait that separates it from wait_for_run — whether this call returns immediately or waits.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary return value and the enumerated statuses, then the secondary fields, then the conditional. No filler or redundancy.

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 must describe return values and it does so reasonably (status enum, stage, timestamps, conditional verify_url). However, it lacks polling/freshness guidance and any disambiguation from wait_for_run, which is what an agent most needs in this sibling set.

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 documented nowhere. 'A run's status' implies the parameter identifies a run, but format, source, or acceptance of partial identifiers is never stated, so the description does not compensate 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 (returns) and resource (a run's status) and even enumerates the status values and the other returned fields (stage, timestamps, verify_url). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling wait_for_run, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance at all. The sibling set contains wait_for_run and get_report, and the description never says whether this is a non-blocking snapshot versus a blocking wait, or when to prefer get_report over this.

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