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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context by disclosing that the action "uses points, metered on the models used," which is cost/billing information not present in the structured 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the cost caveat parenthetically appended. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 resume action with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits what state to expect, error conditions when resuming a non-paused run, and any auth/prerequisite detail.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already carries parameter documentation. The description adds no meaning about the id (e.g., that it is the run id) beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Resume a paused run") that an agent can distinguish from start_deep_analysis or get_deep_analysis. However it does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify how it differs from starting a new run, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase "a paused run" implies the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as start_deep_analysis or deep_stop, and no guidance about what to do if the run is not paused. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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