Get a pipeline run

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful trait — the run is retrievable 'however long ago it ran', implying no retention window — but says nothing about behavior for an unknown/expired ID (error vs. empty) or cross-account scoping, which the account header makes relevant.

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 with no filler, leading with the verb and resource. 'However long ago it ran' is slightly awkward phrasing but it is the one clause carrying non-obvious information, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile; combined with full parameter documentation the definition is sufficient to call correctly. The only real gap is what happens for a missing/inaccessible run ID.

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%, so both parameters (pipeline_run_id, X-Orchestra-Account-Id) are already documented in structured fields, justifying the baseline of 3. The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds no format, validity, or cross-account semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve a single pipeline run') plus the lookup key (by ID), which cleanly separates it from list_pipeline_runs and get_task_run without needing the schema. It also names one key returned field (status), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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: an agent infers 'have a pipeline_run_id, need one run' from the phrasing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, nor a pointer to the obvious alternatives such as list_pipeline_runs (to find an ID) or list_task_runs_for_pipeline_run (to drill into a run's children).

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