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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the precondition that the measurement be completed; it says nothing about how a result set is shaped or whether partial results can occur. Modest incremental value.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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-param read tool with a full annotation safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the agent guessing where a run_id comes from (list_runs) and what "results" contains. Nothing is wrong; meaningful detail is simply absent.

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% for the single run_id parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. "One of your completed measurements" hints that run_id points at a finished run, but no format, source, or example is given, and the schema only imposes maxLength 200.

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?

States a clear verb (read) and resource (results) scoped to a single completed measurement, which is specific enough to separate it from siblings like compare_runs or list_runs. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use this to read results for one of your completed measurements" implies when to use it (a completed measurement rather than a running or failed one) but offers no explicit exclusions and never names compare_runs or get_history as alternatives. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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