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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to restate it. What the description does add is output behavior: at completion it reports who was paid and every testnet transaction, which is helpful for a tool with no output schema. It stops short of saying what intermediate states return or how an agent recognizes a terminal state.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary result (current step) and then the end-state details. No filler, though the sentence is grammatically loose enough that a reader must parse it twice to be sure what is returned.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations this covers the essentials, and with no output schema it earns credit for describing what the result contains at the end. It is incomplete on intermediate-state contents and completion detection, which matter for a progress-checking tool.

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 the single parameter is documented as 'the run id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of meaning by tying that id to a run of knos_near_run_job, telling the agent where the value comes from, but offers nothing on format, length, or reuse across calls.

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 a specific resource — progress of a single NEAR job run — and links it explicitly to knos_near_run_job, which separates it from siblings like knos_near_swarm_job or knos_tasks. The phrasing 'the step a run ... is on' is slightly awkward but the intent (current step plus final settlement details) is legible.

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?

By naming knos_near_run_job the description implies this is the follow-up poll for a run id returned by that tool, which is useful implied usage. It never states explicitly when to call it (e.g., while a run is in progress, or only after completion) or whether polling repeatedly is expected, so guidance remains inferential.

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