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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing that no engine executes here and that missing runs return a fixed 'not available here' message. It does not indicate payload size or pagination for the long time series, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload before the constraint. The 'verbatim' instruction is stated twice (once mid-sentence, once as a closing imperative), which is mild redundancy but keeps the emphasis where it matters.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the five data sections. The only shortfall is that the response envelope/format is not characterized, which matters for large series payloads.

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 coverage is 100% and the single model_id parameter already carries an enum and a pointer to list_models, so the description has nothing left to explain. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the parameter work.

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 ('Return the saved SC Builder engine run of a sample supply chain model') and enumerates the payload contents (metrics, orders, shipments, routing, inventory series). This clearly separates it from explain_simulation (conceptual) and the get_*_result siblings that belong to other demos.

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?

Gives a clear use condition (retrieve a saved run) and an explicit when-not: models with no saved run answer 'not available here' because the server runs no engine. It never names a sibling alternative (e.g. explain_simulation for concepts), so routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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