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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is blocking, that results can be "parked as waiting" on a delay/approval, and that timeout_sec is capped at 600. It omits what is returned or raised if the timeout elapses before any state change, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 that carries the blocking verb, both exit conditions, the parameter cap, and the return value with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the phrase "returns the latest run state" leaves the return shape undefined, and the behavior on timeout (return current state vs. error) is unstated. For a simple three-parameter tool this is close, but the timeout outcome is exactly what an agent needs to branch on.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: it explains timeout_sec's meaning and the 600 maximum. The workflow_id and run_id parameters are self-explanatory by name and need no further elaboration.

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 gives a specific verb ("Block until") and resource ("the run"), and states the two terminating conditions plus the return value. The blocking semantics cleanly distinguish it from get-style siblings such as workflow_run_get without needing to name them.

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 implied by the phrase "block until the run is no longer running" - an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to await completion. However, it never says when NOT to use it (e.g., use workflow_run_get for a non-blocking status peek) or that it is safe to call repeatedly.

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