Get Run Status

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent), so the description adds real behavioral value: the wait_seconds cap of 30s, the exact terminal statuses, the fact that counters advance live, and a stall heuristic (counters frozen for several minutes). It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the operational semantics it does disclose are substantive.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, then behavior, then the routing hint. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the stall/counter discussion is lengthy relative to the primary use case.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still explains how to interpret the counters and when movement indicates a stall. Combined with the terminal-status list and the alternative-tool pointers, an agent has everything needed to call and read this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents run_id, thread_id, and wait_seconds including the 0-30 range. The description reinforces the wait_seconds cap and its purpose (wait for terminal status), which is mildly useful but largely repeats the schema; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check the status of a DeerFlow run') and goes on to enumerate the terminal statuses and live counters returned, so the agent knows exactly what the tool answers. It also names the sibling tools (deerflow_run_progress, deerflow_wait_activity) that provide the event-level detail this tool does not, distinguishing it from them 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?

Gives concrete usage context: set wait_seconds to avoid polling round-trips, and switch to deerflow_run_progress or deerflow_wait_activity when event-level detail is needed. It does not state exclusions (e.g. when not to use this versus deerflow_wait_activity as a full substitute), so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not pair.

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