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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by scoping the payload: it is 'compact' and omits prompts and histories, which tells the agent a lightweight call is safe to poll repeatedly. It does not mention auth scoping or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before qualifying what it excludes. Every clause (compact, refreshed, without prompts or histories) carries distinct information.

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 read-only status getter with no output schema, the description covers the safety and payload-scope story but leaves parameter semantics entirely unstated and gives only a prose sketch of the return shape. An agent could call it, but would be guessing about identifiers and the structure of the status payload.

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% and all three parameters (workspaceId, editId, runId) are required with no descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing about any of them—no relationship between editId and runId, no format hints—so the agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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: get compact refreshed status and timing for a saved project run, and it enumerates the job states covered (completed, active, failed, waiting). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like execute_project_jobs or run_production_template, though it never names the closest status-related sibling (get_production_status) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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: 'refreshed status' suggests polling an existing run, and 'saved project run' implies the run must already exist. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no statement of how this differs from other status or run-listing tools in the catalog.

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