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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context — that the run must be 'owned' (an access/ownership precondition) and that it returns both results and quality explanations — but does not state what happens if no sample exists yet or whether run_pipeline_sample must precede it.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the purpose first and the workflow condition second. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description roughly characterizes the return payload but leaves the parameters completely unexplained despite 0% schema coverage. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so neither pipelineId nor sourceRunId is documented anywhere. The description's 'owned source run' vaguely gestures at sourceRunId but gives no meaning for either parameter, no format guidance, and no relationship between the two.

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 and resource: read the sample results and quality explanations for an owned source run. It is distinguishable from run_pipeline_sample (which presumably generates the sample) and from read_pipeline_leads, though it does not name those siblings 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?

The phrase 'before granting recurring authority' gives a clear timing/workflow condition that points toward activate_pipeline and away from calling this mid-workflow. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusion conditions.

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