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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the auth requirement (account key) and discloses the substantive shape of what comes back, including dry-run mutations and audit-chain verification. It does not mention pagination, size limits, or behavior when the run id is unknown.

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, purpose front-loaded, and the parenthetical enumeration of report sections earns its space by substituting for a missing output schema. The single long sentence is dense but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections (counts, timeline, dry-run mutations, ledger, audit chain), and it flags the account-key requirement. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for an unknown runId and any retention or size caveats.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, including the 'one run is one agent session' semantics and the provenance of proxyId. The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource ('the incident-shaped report for one run') and enumerates its contents, so the agent knows exactly what call returns. It is clearly the per-run inspection tool rather than a fleet-wide report, though it never names okgate_spend_report or okgate_export_audit as the alternatives it is distinguished from.

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 content list (inspect a single run's decisions, dry-run mutations and audit chain) and one prerequisite is given ('Requires an account key'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing guidance versus the sibling reporting tools.

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