status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: the full return payload, the meaning of each status value, and the exact failure shape for an unknown handle. Minor gap: no mention of timing/consistency or cost of polling repeatedly.

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, front-loaded with purpose and the await alternative before the return enumeration. The long comma-separated field list is dense but every item is load-bearing given there is no output schema; bullets would read better.

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 correctly enumerates the return fields and conditional fields (answer on Completed, pendingApproval on AwaitingApproval). Success and error paths are both covered for a one-parameter read 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% and defines the single required handle parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by specifying the error contract for an unknown handle ('{handle, error: "unknown handle"}'), which changes how an agent should handle bad input.

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 ('Read one run's current state') plus the key behavioral qualifier ('at once, without waiting'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the await sibling. An agent can distinguish it from await/spawn without reading schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit rule: use this for non-blocking reads, use await to block until runs finish. That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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