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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains — step progress, transfer status, current phase, and evidence hashes — which matters because no output schema exists. It still says nothing about pagination, staleness of status, or how in-flight versus terminal runs differ.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb-resource opener followed by the returned facets. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or 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 one-parameter read tool with a full schema and read-only annotations, the definition supplies the element that structured data cannot — the content of the returned status. The absence of an output schema makes this enumeration important, and it is present, though run lifecycle states and error behavior for bad or unknown run IDs remain unstated.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the meaning of runId and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format hints for runId (e.g., where to obtain it, prefix or UUID shape) and does not mention its required nature.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a specific resource ('protocol run status') and an enumeration of the returned facets (step progress, transfer status, current phase, evidence hashes). It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_protocol_runs or get_protocol, so the reader must infer the singular-run scope from the required runId, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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: because a single required runId is the sole input, an agent can infer this is the per-run lookup counterpart to list_protocol_runs. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus listing runs or fetching the parent protocol, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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