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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'status' retrieval. It doesn't mention what status values might be returned, whether the run must be active, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, the lack of output schema and no mention of what status information is returned leaves some ambiguity. The tool is simple enough that an agent can likely call it correctly, but the description doesn't enrich the context beyond 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%, with the single parameter builder_run_id fully described as 'The builder run identifier.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 'Get the status of a builder run' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (builder run status). It distinguishes from siblings like getRun, listRuns, cancelBuilderRun, resumeBuilderRun, and startRun by focusing on status retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getRun, which could be ambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for checking builder run status but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling names like getRun and listRuns suggest related tools, but the description doesn't clarify when to choose getBuilderRun over getRun. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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