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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: output is plain text on every tier, the Pro download link is valid for one hour, the file is named by out_path, and the report includes marks, answers, notes, counts, and signature details.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core output type, then covers report contents, tier differences, download link lifetime, and file naming in efficient clauses. Minor grammatical awkwardness like 'The run as plain text' keeps it from being perfect.

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 simple read-only tool with three parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description plus schema adequately cover output format, tier restrictions, file naming, link expiry, and overwrite behavior. It does not detail the exact response envelope, but the output is described well enough for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains out_path's Pro-only nature, the fallback to text when omitted, the one-hour link validity, and overwrite's default-false behavior with refusal when a file exists. The description largely restates these facts rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, 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 clearly identifies the tool's resource and output: it produces a run report as plain text containing steps, marks, answers, notes, counts, and a signature block, with an optional Pro-only download link. It is distinguishable from siblings like run_show and run_status by the report-specific contents, though it relies on the title for the explicit verb 'Produce.'

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 and out_path parameter give clear tier-based usage guidance: every tier can get text output, and Pro users can receive a .txt download link valid for one hour. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as run_show or run_status, leaving some selection to inference.

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