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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral context by naming what gets read and explaining that a positive waitSecs waits for a terminal state, which goes beyond the annotations. 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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary read purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral caveat about waitSecs without repeating the schema.

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-only tool covered by strong annotations, the description adequately conveys what is read and the waiting behavior. There is no output schema, so a fuller return-format description could help, but the listed fields and annotations make the tool usable without significant gaps.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only modest value for waitSecs by noting the positive-value wait behavior, while runId semantics remain exactly as in the 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 clearly states the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'Actor run', and enumerates the data read: status, storage identifiers, summary, and next step. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get-dataset-items or get-key-value-store-record.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The only usage-related note is the waitSecs parameter behavior, which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance.

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