get_positioning_run_detail

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, yet the description still adds substantial value: it defines the 404 run_not_summarized case versus run_not_found and prescribes how to report it (say the run produced no data, don't call it missing, don't zero-fill). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral detail structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by sourcing guidance and error semantics, with no padding. The sentence 'Same reading rule as get_positioning_dashboard' is a cryptic cross-reference that costs a lookup and doesn't fully earn its place on its own.

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 should hint at the return shape; 'full competitor-by-competitor data' gives a rough idea and error behavior is thoroughly covered. A brief note on the response structure would have closed the remaining gap, but nothing critical is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented with their sources, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the runId provenance that the schema already states, adding no format or constraint detail beyond it.

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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieve per-competitor data for a historical Positioning run. It distinguishes itself from get_positioning_history by directing the agent to that sibling only as a source of runId values, so the two tools are not confused.

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 says to source runId from get_positioning_history and points to get_positioning_dashboard for the shared reading rule. It does not spell out when to prefer this over the dashboard or history tools, and the cross-reference adds a lookup burden, but the invocation path is clear.

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