Get run status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the exact payload contents (processed/returned counts, credits charged, ai_cat_status) despite there being no output schema, though it says nothing about polling frequency, retention, or what happens for runs that don't exist.

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 with the verb and resource first, followed by a compact parenthetical enum and a list of returned fields. No filler, though the return-field list is somewhat crammed into the same sentence.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload, which is the most important missing structured information for a status tool. It is only incomplete in not explaining run_id provenance and not routing the agent to get_run_results once a run finishes.

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% and the single run_id parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains where a run_id comes from (e.g., from launch_discovery) or its expected format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Get the status of a run') and enumerates the returned fields and possible status values, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent get_run_results sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'a run you own' implies an ownership precondition and the purpose implies polling an in-flight run, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to get_run_results for finished output. Usage is only inferable from the name and siblings.

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