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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the run lifecycle state machine and the meaning of `result`/`error` for terminal states. This is genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or polling cadence.

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 tightly packed sentences, no filler. The core purpose and the polling instruction are front-loaded, and the result/error clarification follows only because there is no output schema to carry it.

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 correctly takes on the burden of explaining return values (`result.value` for get_ip and clipboard_get, `error` for failures) and the terminal statuses that signal completion. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `slot` and `run_id` are already documented in the schema, including their provenance. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail 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 phone run') and immediately scopes it as 'a device command, macro or GUI-agent task queued on a phone'. This distinguishes it from list-phone-runs-tool (plural listing) and from the queueing siblings like phone-command-tool and run-macro-tool without needing the 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?

Gives clear operational guidance: poll until `status` is succeeded, failed or cancelled, and notes the starting states (queued then running). It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when NOT to use it (e.g. use list-phone-runs-tool to enumerate), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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