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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing a conditional behavior: downloadUrl is only populated once auto-export has finished, which tells the agent how to interpret a missing field. It stops short of describing behavior for unknown or failed run IDs.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded and the usage constraint follows, so the agent gets the essential facts first.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema that carries the return structure, nothing critical is missing. The description correctly focuses on scope and the one conditional output nuance rather than re-documenting the schema.

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 parameter already documents the workflowRunId source ('from a workflow start result or list_workflow_runs'). The description adds no additional syntax, format, or lookup guidance for the parameter, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return a workflow run') and enumerates the payload fields (status, progress, error details, projectId, projectUrl, downloadUrl), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly separates itself from list_workflow_runs and from project-starting tools, but never names an actual sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Use this to poll an existing run without starting another project' states a clear usage context and an implicit exclusion (don't use it to create runs). It does not, however, contrast against nearby siblings such as list_workflow_runs (plural listing) or get_project_export, which an agent may confuse with this tool.

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