Get pipeline run status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of what happens if the run ID is unknown, retention windows, or polling semantics. For a trivially safe read tool the annotations carry the safety profile, but the description contributes essentially nothing new.

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 sentence that states the purpose up front with no filler; the only extra element is a documentation link, which is cheap and potentially useful. Nothing needs trimming.

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 need not be described, and both parameters are covered by the schema with annotations covering the safety profile. What is missing is error/edge-case behavior (unknown run ID, permission failure) and how this relates to adjacent per-run tools.

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%, with pipeline_run_id (uuid4) and X-Orchestra-Account-Id both fully documented in the schema, including the multi-account rules. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Retrieve) and a specific resource (status details for a single pipeline run), and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from list_pipeline_runs. It does not, however, differentiate against other per-run siblings such as get_pipeline_run_lineage_url or list_task_runs_for_pipeline_run.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the run must be complete vs. in-flight), and no exclusions or named alternatives. The only hint is the word 'single', which an agent must infer means 'use this instead of list_pipeline_runs'.

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