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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: this is a polling endpoint and the response is a snapshot including workspace mutations, not just a boolean status.

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 filler, and the highest-value facts (what you get back, then how to poll it) are front-loaded in that order.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is optional; combined with 100% parameter coverage and annotations covering safety, this description leaves nothing an agent needs for correct invocation. Polling semantics are the one extra piece of intent that structured fields can't express, and they are stated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the run_id provenance but drops start_build from the list the schema gives, adding no meaning beyond the schema and introducing a minor inconsistency.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("get a run's status") and enumerates the four payload components returned: status, latest progress note, final response, and workspace changes (commit, branch, files). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_build/get_logs by payload, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than 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?

"Poll this with the run_id returned by prompt or init_project" gives a concrete usage pattern (repeated polling) and identifies the upstream call that produces the identifier. It stops short of saying when to prefer get_build or get_logs instead, so no explicit exclusions.

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