Get a pipeline run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (per-step status, job id, result URL), but says nothing about behavior for an unknown/expired run_id or any polling semantics.

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 no filler; the resource comes first and the returned fields follow. Nothing is wasted.

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 names the returned fields, which is a genuine contribution. However, it leaves the required run_id parameter entirely undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for a tool whose only input is that identifier.

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 has no description, pattern explanation, or format example anywhere. The description references 'a pipeline run' but never clarifies the identifier, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 (Get) and resource (pipeline run), and enumerates what is returned: status, per-step status, job id, result URL. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling adsoptimiser_get_job, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus adsoptimiser_get_job, adsoptimiser_list_pipelines, or adsoptimiser_run_pipeline. Usage can only be inferred from the name and the presence of a run_id parameter.

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