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 genuinely useful behavioral detail by naming the event types returned (queued, dequeued, started, retried, completed) and citing the backing endpoint. It omits ordering/pagination behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying the verb, resource, scope, and event enumeration, plus a compact endpoint reference. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with readOnlyHint annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return-value content (event types) that would otherwise be missing. It lacks ordering or pagination notes, which is a minor residual gap.

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 a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents run_id fully. The URL template in the description reinforces that run_id is a path parameter but adds little semantic meaning 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 (list) and resource (lifecycle events of one run) and even enumerates the event kinds returned. This is far more precise than a bare 'get events' phrasing, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like trigger_get_run or trigger_get_run_trace.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting a run's lifecycle, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over trigger_get_run, trigger_get_run_trace, or trigger_get_run_span, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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