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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds critical non-obvious behavior: a run can be paused on a manual approval gate and repeated polling will not advance it. It also discloses which fields must be carried into the follow-up approval call (expectedRevision, approvalDigest, afterWave, gateIndex), which no structured field provides.

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, front-loaded with the retrieval purpose before the exceptional approval branch. Although the second sentence is long, every clause is operational (paused gate, show to user, require explicit decision, which fields to pass) and none is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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 return-value burden and does so: status, progress, node results, and the requiredAction object with its type. Combined with the approval-gate workflow instructions, an agent has everything needed to read a run and act correctly on a paused gate.

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% for the two required parameters (run_id and organization_id), so baseline is 3 and the schema already carries the syntax. The description adds meaning by stressing that run_id must be a known run (from start_workflow or list_workflow_runs) and by naming the requiredAction fields an agent must round-trip into the approval call.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get status, progress, and node results for one known workflow run ID'), which pinpoints exactly what is returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_workflow_runs by scoping to a single already-known run rather than discovery, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative for discovery ('use list_workflow_runs to discover runs') and gives a concrete when-not condition: when requiredAction.type is 'approval', polling alone will not resolve the paused gate. It further routes the agent to approve_workflow_step and states the precondition (explicit user approve/reject decision), which is unusually complete routing guidance.

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