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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-open-world operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns details including model, data, hardware, location, result, payment, and receipt verification. It also discloses that receipt verification is performed now using the same code as the receipt checker. It does not cover error behavior or response shape, but the added disclosure is meaningful.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the scope and then enumerates the returned information without filler. Every clause contributes to understanding what the tool retrieves.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it does so by listing the key details and the receipt verification behavior. Combined with the fully described input schema and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete, though it could mention not-found or error behavior.

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 100%, and the single id parameter is fully described in the schema as coming 'from list_runs' and constrained by an enum. The main description does not add further meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and scope: 'One Federated Computing run in detail,' and enumerates the fields exposed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_runs by emphasizing a single run and by the schema note that the id comes from list_runs. The only gap is the absence of an explicit retrieval verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 rather than stated: the schema notes the id comes 'from list_runs,' indicating this tool should be called after discovering a run id. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no statement of alternatives, and no prerequisites beyond the parameter source.

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