get_run_status

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 by structured data rather than the prose. The description adds a modest behavioral signal by indicating the response contains per-stage progress and next-step guidance, but says nothing about freshness, blocking behavior, or errors for unknown run IDs.

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 stating what is shown first (progress by stage) and then what else is returned (next steps). No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and the read-only annotation covers risk. For a one-parameter status lookup it is nearly sufficient, missing only a pointer on how it relates to list_runs and resume_search.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents run_id, its format constraint, and its origin ("Run ID from start_search"). The description contributes nothing further about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Show a run's progress") and scopes it to stages plus next steps, which is meaningfully more specific than the bare tool name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_runs or resume_search, so an agent still has to infer which run-oriented tool applies.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can guess this is called with a run_id to inspect progress, and the phrase "available next steps" hints the output guides what to do next. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_runs for enumerating runs.

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