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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful details about output (total, duration, up to 200 requests with model/tokens/cost), but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or other operational traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and key output details.

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?

Given rich annotations, an output schema, and a single-parameter input, the description is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly. It could mention error handling (e.g., if the run id is not found), but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that the single parameter 'run' is a run id, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not specify format, examples, or constraints (e.g., where to find a run id) beyond what is already implied.

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 specific resource (one agent run, conversation, or job) and its scope (by run id), and it distinguishes from the sibling get_runs by noting that get_runs lists the costliest runs. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

The description implies usage (you need a run id to get details) and references get_runs as an alternative, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_runs or any other sibling. The guidance is present but indirect.

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