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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It describes the returned content in detail and 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, what permissions are required, or how errors/edge cases behave.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every clause adds a distinct piece of useful information about what the tool returns.

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 one simple, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively enumerates the response contents: steps, answers, authors, timing, grouping, counts, failures, and sign-off status. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents the single 'run' parameter with an example and the title fallback, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns the whole run with steps, answers, counts, failures, and sign-off eligibility, so an agent can tell what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like run_status or run_report, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'The whole run' implies this is the comprehensive-detail tool, but the description never says when to use it instead of run_status, run_check, or run_report. Usage context is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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