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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the description need not repeat that. What it fails to add is anything about what starting a run does — whether it can fail if a run is already in progress, whether it is idempotent, what state it returns, or whether it is asynchronous.

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 short sentences with no wasted wording and the action front-loaded. Brevity here costs little structurally, though the "Args:" fragment reads like leftover docstring boilerplate rather than deliberate design.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a started run returns (run handle, status, identifier) and how it relates to complete_run and checkpoint. With one required parameter and zero schema documentation, the definition leaves the agent under-informed about the outcome of the call.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: "Args: job_id." merely names the field without saying where the identifier comes from or its format (e.g., value from register_job or list_verdicts).

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 states a verb and resource ("Start a run for a job"), but it largely restates the title "Start a job run" and does not distinguish it from siblings such as verify_now or watchdog_tick, which also plausibly initiate work. An agent can infer the basic action but not what makes this the right choice.

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 guidance on when to call this versus checkpoints, verify_now, or watchdog_tick, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., whether the job must be registered first). The only usage-like content is the bare parameter list.

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