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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: bytes are never streamed through the server, partial output from failed runs is included, and the response shape is previewed. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the artifact types, followed by run-state behavior, an example, return shape, and next-step guidance. Every sentence adds functional value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the run-state edge case, response fields, a concrete example, and the next tool to use. The only minor gap is that the 'more' field in the return shape is not explained, leaving pagination semantics slightly ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that run_id can reference running, succeeded, or failed runs, and gives a concrete example of the expected JSON shape. The UUID format is already strongly constrained by the schema, so the description only needs to contextualize the single parameter.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: lists the files a run sealed (parquet, profile, receipt, preview). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_artifact_download by noting that bytes are not streamed here, and it is distinct from get_run/list_runs in that it returns artifact metadata rather than run status.

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?

It explicitly covers valid run states: running, succeeded, or failed, including partial output on failure. It also provides an alternative, telling the agent to use get_artifact_download next if actual bytes are needed, which is clear when-to-use versus when-to-use-another-tool guidance.

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