get_content_run_detail

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

Declares tool as read-only and returns a JSON object, aligning with safe usage. Mentions returning the same structure as get_content_dashboard, providing behavioral insight. Without annotations, this covers essential behavioral aspects.

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?

Five sentences front-load purpose, comparison, use case, dependency, and safety—each sentence adds unique value without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format, though it could optionally mention data limits or ordering.

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 already describes both parameters (runId and projectId) with sources, achieving 100% coverage. Description reinforces runId source but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.

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 clearly states it retrieves competitor-by-competitor Content Intelligence data for a past historical run, distinguishing it from get_content_dashboard (current data) and other siblings.

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 recommends use to investigate content strategy changes between runs and specifies prerequisite of runId from get_content_history. Implicitly contrasts with get_content_dashboard for current data, guiding selection.

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