get_positioning_run_detail

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' and 'Returns JSON object', indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. It also mentions the return structure is the same as 'get_positioning_dashboard', providing helpful context. Could mention authorization or rate limits but is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, very efficient. First sentence defines the action and output. Second sentence provides use case and prerequisites. No wasted words.

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 explains the return structure (same as dashboard). Both parameters are explained with sources. Use case and prerequisites are covered. Complete for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context by specifying that 'runId' comes from 'get_positioning_history' and 'projectId' from 'list_projects', which is helpful beyond the schema's type/pattern info.

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 the tool retrieves 'full competitor-by-competitor Positioning data for a specific historical run' using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Positioning data for a historical run'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_positioning_dashboard' by specifying 'for a past point in time'.

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 'Use this to investigate how competitor messaging evolved between runs' and notes the prerequisite 'Requires runId from get_positioning_history'. While it implies the alternative 'get_positioning_dashboard' for current data, it does not explicitly state when not to use.

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