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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful semantics: the run must be complete, the report includes a money-guard outcome and verdict counts, and crucially that 'not established' means the probe could not decide rather than a pass. That last point prevents a real misreading of results. It does not state error behavior when the run is unfinished, nor the response format beyond the field list.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the precondition, then the interpretation caveat. The enumerated return fields are dense but each item is informative. No filler sentences; minor cost is that the middle sentence mixes precondition with an implicit usage rule.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing what the report contains and how to read the verdict categories. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — what happens if the run is not finished or the id is invalid — which matters for an agent wiring together a multi-step run flow.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains run_id. The description repeats the same provenance fact ('run id from argus_run_simulation or argus_run_engine') without adding syntax, format, or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a finished Argus run report') and enumerates the payload (money-guard outcome, verdict counts, per-probe verdicts, proven/violations_found/not_established lists). Combined with the note that the run id must come from argus_run_simulation or argus_run_engine, an agent can place this tool relative to its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly states the precondition — the run must be finished, and the run_id must originate from argus_run_simulation or argus_run_engine — which implies the correct call ordering after a run. It also gives interpretive guidance for acting on results ('treat proven violations as evidence you can show the user'). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name an alternative retrieval tool.

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