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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by enumerating the payload contents (status, counts, errors), which compensates somewhat for the absent output schema, though it says nothing about errors for missing/invalid ids.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the operation is front-loaded before the REST mapping. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields (status, counts, errors) is the right compensating detail, and readOnly is handled by annotations. It is nearly complete; only the id source and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 is 100% and the schema itself notes the id is numeric but passed as a string. The description adds no detail beyond 'by id', so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters applies.

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 (Get) and resource (a single sync run) and explicitly scopes it to one item by id, which cleanly separates it from the sibling census_list_sync_runs. The REST mapping (GET /sync_runs/{id}) reinforces the intent.

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 'by id' and 'a single sync run' imply the lookup use case and contrast with the list sibling, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus census_list_sync_runs or where an id comes from. Usage is only implied.

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