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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by scoping the payload to metadata and stating that inputs and outputs are never stored — a data-boundary disclosure an agent cannot get from the annotations. It does not cover pagination or not-found behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list and the privacy constraint packed into a single parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be re-read.

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?

With only one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries the right load by enumerating the returned fields, which substitutes for the missing output schema. It falls short only on error behavior for an invalid run_id and on any explicit relation to sibling tools.

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 100% and the single parameter run_id is documented in the schema with its format example, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (a run) plus the exact fields returned: status, steps, evaluations, credits, error. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from list_runs by plurality alone, but it never names the sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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: take a run_id and fetch that run's detail, in contrast to list_runs. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_runs or run_workflow, and no note on what happens if the ID is unknown.

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