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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the blocking semantics and 45s cap of waitSecs, the meaning of summary (describes the past) and nextStep (prescribes one interpolated follow-up), which an agent needs to interpret the response.

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-loaded with the purpose, then USAGE, then examples, with every line carrying information: field list, summary/nextStep semantics, and the waitSecs contract. No filler sentences, and the examples are short and directly actionable.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully characterizes summary and nextStep so the agent can act on them. Purpose, parameters, blocking behavior and examples are all covered; only auth/permission prerequisites for reading another Actor's run are unstated, which is a minor gap.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema with min/max/default and terminal-state enumeration. The description's waitSecs line ('0-45, default 30, waits up to that many seconds for terminal status') largely restates the schema, adding no syntax or format beyond it, 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?

The description gives a precise verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Actor run') and enumerates the returned fields (status, storages, stats, summary, nextStep). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling abort-actor-run, but the phrasing 'a run started by any Actor-running tool' makes its read-only inspection role clear.

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 USAGE section states when to reach for it ('check the status of a run started by any Actor-running tool') and how to make it block via waitSecs > 0, reinforced by two concrete user_input examples. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus abort-actor-run or a listing tool), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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