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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important state-dependent behavior: finished runs carry outputs, running runs list completed nodes, and finishedAt/durationMs are omitted while running. This is meaningful behavioral detail that helps an agent know what to expect when polling.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and result, the second gives polling guidance, and the third clarifies the two response states. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the response shape and stateful behavior across running vs finished runs. It would be even better with error cases or a note on where runId comes from, but given the simple two-parameter input and strong response semantics, it is complete enough for an agent to call 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 0% and the description does not compensate. It never explains what pipelineId or runId represent, where to obtain them, or how they relate to the run. The parameter names are fairly self-evident, but with zero schema documentation the description should at least state that runId comes from a prior run_pipeline/assemble_video/edit_asset call.

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 'Get one run' and specifies exactly what is returned: overall status, per-node results, and output URLs. It clearly distinguishes this from list_runs by indicating a single run and from get_pipeline by focusing on execution status rather than definition.

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 gives explicit context: 'Poll this after run_pipeline, assemble_video or edit_asset until the status is no longer "running"'. This clearly ties the tool to async workflows. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_runs, but the trigger context is specific and actionable.

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