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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auth requirements and the data returned, but does not discuss potential errors (e.g., execution not found) or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, required parameter, and return values. It also includes auth information efficiently. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (status, output, cost) and mentions auth. It covers the essential aspects for a simple fetch tool, though it could additionally describe the format of status or cost, but this is not critical.

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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name and type (string) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that execution_id identifies a past execution the user ran, and that the tool returns status, output, and cost. This adds significant value beyond 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 tool fetches a past execution (status, output, cost) by execution_id, using the specific verb 'Fetch'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent' or 'discover_agents' which retrieve different resources.

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 the tool is for fetching executions the user ran themselves ('you ran'), providing contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the purpose is straightforward.

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