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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: which fields appear only while running vs. only when finished, that finishedAt/durationMs are omitted mid-run, and how pollAfterSec should govern retry timing. This is exactly the kind of runtime behavior an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return-shape detail, and every sentence carries information rather than restating the name. It is dense and backtick-heavy, but no sentence is redundant, so it earns its length for a polling tool with rich return semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it explains outputs, nodes, progress, pollAfterSec, and the omitted finishedAt/durationMs fields for both running and finished states. Nothing an agent needs to poll and interpret correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no detail about runId or pipelineId (format, source, or pairing). It does implicitly establish that the call targets a single pipeline+run pair, and the parameters are self-evident ID strings, so it is not fatal, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get one run') and immediately scopes it: 'overall status plus per-node results and output URLs'. This clearly separates it from list_runs and from the run-triggering siblings (run_pipeline, assemble_video, edit_asset), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It states exactly when to call it: 'Poll this after run_pipeline, assemble_video or edit_asset until the status is no longer "running"'. It also names the stop condition and the polling cadence constraint ('no need to poll faster than pollAfterSec'), giving both when-to-use and when-to-stop guidance.

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