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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals read-only intent indirectly ('read before citing evidence') and names what it surfaces, but says nothing about error behavior, what happens if both or neither optional parameter is supplied, or the shape of the returned metadata.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the payload enumeration leads and the usage cue follows. It is efficient, though the telegraphic noun-phrase style borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

A metadata-inspection tool with no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters needs the description to explain invocation semantics, especially the both-optional parameter combination. The entry covers what it exposes but leaves how to call it correctly unresolved.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The phrase 'of a category or run' loosely maps to the two parameters, but the description never explains their semantics, that both are optional, or how they interact. It adds only marginal meaning over the bare schema.

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 names the resource and the specific payload it returns (limits, freshness, conflicts, answer rule) for a category or run, which is more informative than a bare name. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_run or get_results that also concern runs. Purpose is implied 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?

'Read before citing evidence' is a genuine usage cue that tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. But it gives no alternative, no when-not condition, and no guidance for the category-vs-run choice the two parameters imply.

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