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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the full status enum, what error information surfaces on failure, and the polling pattern, which matters for how an agent should call it repeatedly.

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, no filler. The payload description comes first and the usage instruction second, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning the definition.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (status values, counts, timing, error text). The absence of guidance on polling cadence or whether repeated polling incurs cost keeps this just short of complete.

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% and both parameters already document their source ('Run id from trigger_run or list_feeds', 'Feed id from list_feeds'). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (one run) and exactly what it returns: progress, outcome, status values, item counts, audit issue count, timing, and error message. That level of detail distinguishes it clearly from trigger_run and the other read siblings.

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?

"Use after trigger_run to poll to completion" gives concrete situational guidance and names the companion tool. It doesn't spell out any exclusions, such as which tool to use for listing all runs or for feed-level status.

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