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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is aggregated rather than sample-level ('not every sample') and an empty profile is an expected outcome for indoor runs. That edge-case disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations or output schema.

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 core deliverable (grid profile, min/avg/max/coverage) is front-loaded, followed by the half-split and drift details. It is somewhat clause-dense with the trailing 'also ... also after the warm up', but nearly every phrase conveys concrete field semantics rather than filler.

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 a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description's job is mostly done by structured fields; it nonetheless fills the most important gaps by naming the metrics returned and flagging the indoor-run empty case. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains it ('Run id from ourpr_list_runs'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 precisely states what the tool returns: a 10 m grid profile with elevation and sensor channels summarized as min/avg/max/coverage, plus per-half distance splits and drift metrics. It is clearly distinct from sample-level siblings like ourpr_run_laps, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as ourpr_get_run or ourpr_run_laps. The single line 'No profile is a normal answer for an indoor run' is about interpreting an empty response, not about when to call this tool versus another, so usage remains inferred.

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