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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape — the five status values and the presence of per-step results and an answer_preview. It omits the read-only nature, auth/permission requirements, error behavior for missing runs, and whether per-step payloads are truncated.

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?

It is a single compact fragment with no wasted words, but it is a field inventory rather than a description and is not front-loaded with purpose. The terse parenthetical enum is efficient, yet the overall structure is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

The return-field enumeration partially compensates for the absent output schema, which is the description's main contribution. However, a get-by-id tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations still lacks purpose framing, error handling notes, and sibling routing, leaving real gaps.

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% for the two required parameters, and the description says nothing about them. The parameter names are fairly self-evident, but there is no compensation for the complete lack of documented semantics, such as the relationship between pipeline_id and run_id or their expected format.

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 enumerates what comes back (status values, current_step_index, per-step results, answer_preview) but never states the action explicitly — the verb and resource are only inferable from the tool name. It gives no differentiation from siblings like pipeline_run_wait, pipeline_runs_list, or pipeline_history_get, which retrieve overlapping run information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus pipeline_run_wait (which presumably polls for completion) or pipeline_runs_list. No preconditions, no mention that both pipeline_id and run_id are required, and no note on what happens for unknown runs.

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