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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses the auth requirement (paper:read), the conditional content (tested market, interval, revision, rules 'when verifiable'), the paired buy-and-hold baseline for historical plugin runs, and the labeling behavior for legacy runs. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Five short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The return-content detail is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but each sentence still carries a distinct fact.

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 an output schema and full annotations, the description covers permissions, scope exclusions, conditional output, and edge-case handling. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 0% and run_id has no description in the schema, so the description must carry the load. It conveys only that the id scopes to 'one run in the connected workspace' and nothing about format or provenance. Adequate but thin for a 0%-coverage parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (status and bounded performance report for one run) with explicit scope ('in the connected workspace'). The closing line 'Does not return raw market feeds' cleanly separates it from the data-fetching sibling get_run_data.

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?

Gives real usage conditions: paper reads require paper:read, and the tool does not start, stop, qualify, or modify a bot. It does not explicitly name get_run_data or another sibling as the alternative, so routing still requires inference, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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