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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which the description does not contradict. However the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations – it does not say whether the run must be in a specific state, whether the checkpoint expires, or what happens if called on a non-paused run. With annotations covering safety, only the read-only aspect is fully transparent.

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 that names the return content first (candidate IDs, scientific previews, digest) and then the condition (workflow run paused for curation). No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what is returned (candidate IDs, previews, digest). But it omits when the checkpoint exists, what to do after reading (e.g., use continue_workflow_run), and any constraint on calling it. For a read tool in a curation workflow, this is adequate but 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?

There is 1 parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Paused workflow run ID'), so the schema already defines the parameter fully. The description mentions 'a workflow run' and 'paused for curation', which is consistent with the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 (read) and the exact resource content (candidate IDs, scientific previews, candidate-set digest) for a paused workflow run. This distinguishes it from get_workflow_run or get_workflow_results, which would not mention curation checkpoints.

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 'paused for curation' implies the tool is only useful when a workflow run has entered a curation checkpoint state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like get_workflow_run or continue_workflow_run. The condition is implied rather than spelled out.

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