Run status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), while the description adds important operational behavior: wait triggers long-polling that holds the request, and polling should continue until a terminal status. It does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or failure statuses, but the key non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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 short, front-loads the core purpose, and highlights the polling workflow. It repeats the max-50 wait constraint and long-poll concept across the wait paragraph and workflow paragraph, but the repetition is minor and does not obscure the guidance.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with no output schema, the description explains the return concepts (status and progress) and the polling behavior sufficiently. It omits some possible terminal states such as failure, but overall an agent has enough information to call and poll the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context for wait: it long-polls, holds until the run finishes or the budget elapses, and should be repeated until a terminal status. This goes beyond the schema's 'Seconds to long-poll' wording, though the id parameter adds no meaning 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?

The description clearly states that this tool returns the status and progress of a run, and it scopes that to runs created from enrichments, datasets, or extractions. It distinguishes status/progress from result retrieval implicitly, but it does not name the sibling get_run_result or otherwise explicitly route the agent away from alternatives.

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?

The description gives a concrete polling workflow: pass wait, hold until completion or timeout, and repeat until status is 'success' or 'stopped'. It does not explicitly compare this tool with get_run_result, list_runs, runs_summary, or stop_run, so alternative selection remains somewhat implicit.

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