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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context beyond that: an x402 payment signature is required in _meta, and waitSecs blocks up to a 45s cap. It doesn't describe rate limits or failure modes of the payment path, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then organizes USAGE, examples, and the payment caveat into labeled blocks with no filler. The two example user_inputs are mildly redundant with the USAGE section, keeping it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description usefully previews the result shape (summary as past-tense, nextStep as prescribed follow-up) and surfaces the payment prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; minor gaps only in error/payment-failure behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself (runId and waitSecs with range, default, cap). The description largely restates the waitSecs semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Actor run') and describes the returned payload. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like abort-actor-run (different verb) and get-dataset-items (different resource).

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 explicit context ('Use to check the status of a run started by any Actor-running tool') and a clear rule for the blocking behavior ('Pass waitSecs > 0 to block until terminal'). It does not name when NOT to use it or an alternative status-checking path, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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