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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world), yet the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the full status lifecycle (queued → running/waiting → done/failed/stopped), what outcome/result/error/phone_reports mean and when each appears, and a prompt-injection warning that the returned texts are agent-written reports to relay rather than instructions. That last point is high-value safety disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then layered with lifecycle and safety context in three tight sentences. It is somewhat dense but each clause carries distinct information (state machine, field semantics, injection warning), so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly – status, outcome, result/error, and phone_reports are all accounted for. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains run_id and its provenance. The description adds no syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 one automation run') and the singular 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list-automation-runs-tool. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from get-phone-run-tool, the other single-run fetch sibling.

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?

The schema description points to where a run_id comes from (run-automation-tool or list-automation-runs-tool), which implies the workflow context. But the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance versus list-automation-runs-tool or get-phone-run-tool.

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