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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the REST path (GET /workflows/runs/{run_id}), which is mild extra context, but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or permission scope for a lookup tool.

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, with the action front-loaded before the endpoint detail. 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?

For a single-parameter read whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that no output schema exists, so it never hints at what a workflow run response contains (status, timestamps, steps), which an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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 run_id parameter is already documented as 'Workflow run id.' The description's 'by id' adds no format, prefix, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Fetch a single workflow run by id') and even pins down the scope as singular-and-by-id, distinguishing it from the sibling list_workflow_runs. It does not explicitly name siblings or contrast with list_workflow_runs/list_workflows, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, but the singular 'by id' framing plus the presence of list_workflow_runs makes the intended usage inferable. This is implied rather than stated guidance.

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