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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral context not present in structured data: the auth requirement of an account key and a disclosure of what the report contains, including 'dry-run mutations (what would have changed)'. This is valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and contents, the second states the prerequisite. Dense but efficient, with no filler. The long enumerated clause is justified because no output schema exists to describe the return.

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 read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections (counts, timeline, dry-run mutations, ledger entries, audit-chain verification). Missing is any guidance on run lifecycle or relationship to agentguard_export_audit, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, with both runId and proxyId well documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Requires an account key' is an auth note rather than parameter guidance and does not add semantics for the two declared parameters.

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 ('get run' returning an incident-shaped report for one run) and enumerates the report contents, giving the agent a concrete picture of the artifact. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping agentguard_export_audit sibling, which also concerns the audit chain, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the scoping ('for one run', 'one run is one agent session' in the schema) and there is an explicit prerequisite ('Requires an account key'). However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over agentguard_export_audit or how it relates to other siblings.

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