GetBackgroundRun

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it tags itself read-only and runtime, notes a read keeps the run, explains a finished run persists until discarded, and states the system answer is returned verbatim including errors. Missing only rate-limit/polling behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences with bracketed mode tags front-loaded and no filler; each clause conveys distinct information about state, retention, and return content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what is returned (the run tool's answer, errors included) and the retention lifecycle. Adequate for a single-parameter read tool, though polling guidance for in-progress runs is absent.

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% and the single parameter is already fully documented as 'the run_handle a run started with background=true answered'. The description restates this without adding format or sourcing detail, so the schema does the real work.

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 and resource: reads one background run by its run_handle, covering both running and finished states. It implicitly distinguishes itself from ListBackgroundRuns by being handle-scoped, but never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The closing line 'Runs outside batch mode' hints that batch-mode runs should be retrieved elsewhere (BatchAnswers), which is genuinely useful routing. However no explicit when/when-not or named alternatives are given, so usage must be inferred.

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