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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description goes beyond it by enumerating the returned payload (status, output, task history), which is the most useful behavioral context given there is no output schema. It still omits any error/not-found behavior for an invalid id.

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 tight sentences: purpose and returned fields first, endpoint mapping second. No padding or redundancy, and the important clause leads.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor omission: it doesn't state behavior on a missing/invalid run id.

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% for the single workflow_run_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only restates 'by id' and the REST path template, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema; 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 (retrieve) and resource (a single Studio workflow run), plus the scope of data returned (status, output, task history) and the lookup key (id). The singular 'single workflow run' vs. the sibling onfido_list_workflow_runs makes the retrieval-vs-listing distinction clear without opening a schema.

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 implied by 'a single ... by id', which contrasts naturally with the sibling list_workflow_runs, but the description never explicitly says to use this when you already have a run id rather than to enumerate runs. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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