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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value and the fact that this reports a start event, but does not say whether the call persists data, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur, or how `run_id` is produced. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and key return information in a front-loaded manner, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate; it does not. Missing details include parameter semantics (`source`), behavioral side effects, how `run_id` is generated or returned, and how this tool relates to the sibling lifecycle tools like `runvouch_run_end`.

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 description only clarifies that `agent` refers to the running agent. The `source` parameter is completely unexplained, and no guidance is given about the relationship between the two parameters or their expected formats.

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 names a specific action—reporting that a run of `agent` started—and notes the return value `run_id`. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like `runvouch_run_end`, though it does not explicitly name its sibling counterpart.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus `runvouch_run_end`, `runvouch_run_proof`, or other sibling tools. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no context, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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