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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that media files are viewable/downloadable on the website run history page, require login, expire after 30 days, and that the link is included in the response, but it omits whether the tool itself requires authentication, its read-only nature, or any rate/side-effect constraints.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the core purpose and return contents, and the second sentence adds important media-access context without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the key behavioral nuance around media link expiry and login, though it could more explicitly relate this tool to app-status and state whether only succeeded runs are valid inputs.

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 description adds no meaning about the required payload or run_no parameter. The schema contains a nested run_no description ('Run number returned by app-run'), but the reported schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's role or format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch the result of a succeeded run. It also enumerates return contents (summary, markdown report, media info), which helps distinguish it from a generic status endpoint, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like app-status.

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?

Usage is implied by 'result of a succeeded run,' which suggests calling it after app-run succeeds, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus app-status or app-run. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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