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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that execution continues from the stop point rather than restarting, but says nothing about failure modes, whether the run must be paused, or required permissions.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource and immediately qualifying the target state. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

With one required, fully described parameter, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It could be more complete by stating what happens if the run is not in a paused state, but no critical information 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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Protocol run ID to resume'), and the description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that. Per the rubric, a fully documented single-parameter schema establishes a baseline of 3.

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 (resume) and resource (protocol run) plus the key precondition scoping (a paused run) and the point of resumption (from where it stopped). It is meaningfully distinct from pause_protocol_run/cancel_protocol_run/start_protocol_run, though it never names those siblings to disambiguate choice.

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 phrase 'paused protocol run' implies the condition under which this tool applies, which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not (e.g. what to do if the run is not paused or already completed) and no mention of alternatives like start_protocol_run.

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