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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses that the verdict is conditional on the run reaching a final state, and that results include read values and external artifact links. It says nothing about behavior for a missing or in-progress run.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, but it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than an action statement, and the trailing list of returned fields is long enough to obscure the core point. Front-loading the 'what it does' before the payload inventory would read better.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers the return payload, which is exactly the gap structured fields leave open. Only the error/not-found and in-progress behavior are left unaddressed.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents runId and its 'j_…' format. The description adds no meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates what a run record contains (status, verdict, headline, per-check results, values read, links) but never states a verb or that it fetches a run by id – that has to be inferred from the title and parameter. The resource is unambiguous, yet nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_build or get_test beyond the noun 'run'.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. The phrase 'once final the verdict' faintly implies that non-final runs lack a verdict, which gestures at wait_run, but the reader must construct that inference themselves.

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