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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the authentication requirement (`Authorization: Bearer` API key) and the account scoping limitation ('reads only that account's own runs') for the simulation_id path.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the branch distinction, with the auth caveat attached to the branch it applies to. No wasted prose, though the line-break fragmentation adds no value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering auth and account scoping, the definition is nearly complete; the only real gap is the unresolved question of parameter mutual exclusivity given zero required params.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does explain what each of the two parameters means. However, it omits mutual-exclusivity/requirement semantics, and with 0 required parameters it never clarifies whether one of them must be supplied or what happens if both (or neither) are given.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read a stored result') and enumerates the two retrieval modes (share token vs. simulation_id). It is unambiguous against siblings like get_component or get_validation_summary, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 selection rule between the two access paths: use a share `token` for a run's public result, or `simulation_id` for your own account's runs, which additionally requires a ThrustLab API key. It does not state when to prefer this tool over the sibling read tools, but the in-tool branch guidance is explicit.

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