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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output format but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The mention of out_path and overwrite implies file creation, but it is not explicitly framed as a write operation or its implications (e.g., does it modify the run or create a resource?). This lack of clarity on mutability and side effects is a notable gap.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the Pro-specific detail. Every clause contributes meaning, and the structure is logical and scannable.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the report contents, the tier differences, the download link validity, and the overwrite behavior. However, it does not mention potential failure conditions (e.g., run not found) or whether the report generation has any prerequisites, but these are minor gaps given the schema already defines parameters.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that out_path is Pro-only, explaining the behavior of overwrite (default false, refuses existing), and noting that run can be an id or title. These enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: it produces a run report as plain text, with specific contents (steps, marks, who answered, notes, counts, signature). It also distinguishes Pro vs every tier and mentions the download link feature. This is a specific verb-resource pair, easily distinguishable from siblings like run_show or run_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions tier differences but does not state when to prefer run_report over run_show, run_status, or other run-related tools. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or references to sibling tools, leaving selection to inference.

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