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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to. It does add real value by enumerating the return payload (steps, outputs, diffs, screenshot links), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about payload size, latency, permissions, or whether a run id that doesn't exist errors or returns empty.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the high-level summary ('A whole run as data') followed by a parenthetical breakdown of contents. Dense but every clause adds information; no filler.

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 correctly spends its budget describing the return shape, which is the right call. But for a 2-parameter tool with an undocumented required id and no usage guidance against 17 siblings, an agent still lacks enough to know when to call this rather than search_runs.

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 coverage is 50%: my_name is documented, but the required `id` has no description at all. The description's phrase 'a whole run' only weakly implies that `id` identifies the run — it never says what an id looks like, where to obtain one, or what my_name does in this context.

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 clearly conveys that this returns the full detail of a single run, and the enumerated payload (steps, commands, diffs, tests, screenshots, outcome) makes the resource unambiguous. It never states an explicit verb and doesn't name search_runs or review_broadcast as the contrasting alternatives, so differentiation from siblings is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_runs (which presumably lists runs) or review_broadcast. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of when the payload would be too large or when a narrower tool is preferable.

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