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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds the detail that results include job dependencies and suggests diagramming multiple jobs, which is useful context beyond 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?

The description is concise with two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds a useful note about diagramming job dependencies, which is actionable. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers what it does and what it returns conceptually. It also provides a unique instruction about diagramming dependencies, which suggests a richer insight for the agent. Adequate for the complexity, though it could specify the exact fields returned.

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?

The schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description should explain the parameter. It mentions the workflowRunId is used to fetch info, but doesn't add format or constraints beyond the schema's basic string type. Since there's only one parameter and the purpose is clear, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 clearly states the tool fetches detailed information about a specific EAS workflow run by ID, including status, job results, errors, and artifacts. It distinguishes from siblings like expo_workflow_list (list all) and expo_workflow_logs (logs) by focusing on a single run's detailed info.

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 description specifies when to use it: to check status, job results, errors, and artifacts of a workflow run. It implies this is for post-run inspection, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like expo_workflow_logs for logs.

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