Get run result

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains credit/token counter behavior, liveness interpretation, failure details (cause and retryability), and inline inclusion of pending request details. This is rich, non-obvious information that helps the agent understand side effects and edge cases.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds essential operational details. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is justified given the tool's complexity; no filler or redundancy.

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, but the description fully explains the return payload (status, timestamps, credits/tokens, reply, URL, failure info, awaiting_input details) and how to interpret it. It also covers liveness checking and normal conditions, making it complete for the tool's use case.

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 the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain agent_id and run_id. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning—it notes run_id is 'returned by invoke_agent,' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the tool's function: retrieving a run's status, timestamps, credits/tokens, reply, and URL. It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'poll') and resource ('run') and distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing invoke_agent and answer_pending_input.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use to poll a run started with invoke_agent wait=false.' It also explains how to judge liveness via last_heartbeat_at and mentions the awaiting_input status in relation to answer_pending_input, giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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