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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the auth requirement (release:read) and the ownership constraint (run must belong to the bearer token account). This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool can and cannot do without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is one concise sentence that states the action and the permission requirement, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then the constraint, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple getter with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the required permission, and the ownership constraint. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and there are no side effects to disclose. It is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter run_id, with a detailed description explaining its origin, ownership, and what not to substitute. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb 'get' and a specific resource 'Release Gate run', and adds an ownership constraint ('owned by the bearer token account') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_woo_release_verification (creation) and claim_woo_release_result (claiming a result). It also mentions the required permission, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides a permission requirement ('Requires release:read') which implies the tool is only usable under that condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_woo_release_result or start_woo_release_verification. Usage is implied (retrieve a run you started), but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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