Get Research Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'durable' and listing the returned contents (metadata, inputs, metrics, summary), which gives the agent a clear idea of what to expect from the response. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing run_id) or response formatting, which would be additional value.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource. Every word adds specificity (durable, metadata, inputs, metrics, summary). There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned and that it pertains to a past run. The main missing piece is parameter semantics, which is covered separately, but overall the description combined with annotations gives a solid understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description bears full responsibility for explaining the parameter. It does not explicitly mention 'run_id' or explain that it identifies the research run to retrieve. The phrase 'previous research run' implies it, but the tool name and description do not directly connect the single parameter to an identifier format or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap given only one parameter exists.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a previous research run', listing the exact contents (durable metadata, inputs, metrics, summary). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_evidence or list_sources, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention get_market_evidence or other related tools, nor does it state prerequisites or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The phrase 'previous research run' implies use after a run exists, but no comparative direction is given.

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