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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying that the report is finished, contains citations, and that report_text is markdown, which informs the agent about the output format and content expectations.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key idea, names the output field, and specifies the format, making every word useful.

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?

Given a single parameter, a full schema description, safe read-only annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers what is needed: the precondition of a completed run and the markdown format of the report. No critical guidance is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 for the single parameter is 100%, as run_id is described as 'The run_id returned by runs.launch.' The description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 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 identifies the resource as 'the finished, cited report for a completed run' and clarifies that report_text is markdown. This makes the function's object clear, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling runs.get tool.

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 'for a completed run' implies the tool should be used after a run has finished, which is a useful precondition. However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use it, nor does it compare itself to alternatives such as runs.get, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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