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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results span a lineage (root run, derived boosts, an activeBoostRunId) and that it reports a combined readout comparing boosts to the original — context an agent could not infer from the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then an explicit return shape. The middle sentence ('Gives the detail behind a single experiment') largely restates the first and is the only real waste.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the inline return signature ({ run, lineage: { rootRunId, bestCompletedRunId, overallReadout, runs, activeBoostRunId } }) is genuinely necessary and is supplied. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the omission of any parameter explanation leaves the definition incomplete.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not do so. It never explains the roles of ideaId versus runId, nor what the response_format enum ('markdown' | 'json') changes about the output, despite the return block being written in JSON terms.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one Ad Run') plus its distinguishing scope ('with its full lineage — the original run, any boosts derived from it, and the combined readout'). That implicitly separates it from sibling list/event tools like idealaunch_list_ad_runs and idealaunch_get_run_events, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Gives the detail behind a single experiment' hints that this is the detail view versus a listing, and that you need a run that already exists. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for the listing or event-history case.

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