Get a run's full record

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that presigned s3_*_url links are elided because they are 6-hour capabilities no tool relays, and by explaining that results remain viewable via gn_layer_* WMS entries. The `sww` block adds state semantics (available/not_kept/archived/restoring), size, and the ui_url download/restore path — exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and sibling routing, then structured paragraphs for downloads and `sww`. The `sww` passage is dense but earns its space by preventing a failed download attempt; slight over-length keeps it off a 5.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description supplies the interpretive context the schema cannot: why URLs are absent, what the alternative result-access path is, and what each `sww.state` value implies. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the response 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?

Only one parameter (run_id) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents it; the description adds no extra constraint or format detail on run_id. Baseline 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?

First sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a simulation run') and enumerates the payload: status, progress, timing, compute details, mesh info, errors, result log. It is immediately distinguishable from get_run_status, which is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_run_status for lightweight polling; use this for final results.' That is a clear when-to-use/when-to-use-the-alternative statement with the selecting condition (polling vs. final results).

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