Get retained rank-check run

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that cancelled, blocked and deferred execution states are all returned, and that results come 'without observations' — behavioral detail an agent could not infer from the safety hints alone.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the second sentence efficiently enumerating exclusions. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 only two fully-documented params and no output schema, the description's hint at returned execution states partially stands in for a return-value explanation. It could go further on the shape of the returned run state, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both run_id and project_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and resource ('retained execution states' of a rank-check run), with the singular get signal relative to sibling list_rank_check_runs. It doesn't explicitly name get_rank_check_result or explain how the two differ, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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 exclusions ('Does not launch checks, retry provider requests or change schedules') clarify what this is not, which implies usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_rank_check_runs or get_rank_check_result, so routing guidance is only implied.

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