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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about what the response contains, including the run log, origin, and cost, but does not discuss error behavior or response formatting beyond those fields.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main resource and avoids repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id tool, though the sentence fragment is not maximally explicit.

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 simple read operation, the combination of rich annotations, complete run_id schema documentation, and description of returned content is nearly sufficient. Because there is no output schema, the description could more fully specify the response shape, but it covers the essentials.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the source of the run_id from list_runs. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the resource as a single run and lists the key payload elements: output log, provenance, and cost. It implies retrieval of one run, though it does not explicitly name the sibling list_runs or use a direct verb like 'get'.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_runs or list_monitor_events. Any usage context is only inferable from the schema's note that run_id comes from list_runs.

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