Retrieve run details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: it is a polling endpoint and outputs are only retrievable via output steps. That is genuinely useful context that the structured fields do not convey.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. 'Output steps must be used to retrieve outputs' is slightly redundant in wording but carries real 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it only vaguely says 'retrieve final flow outputs' without describing run status values or the shape of the payload an agent polling for completion would need to inspect. The output-steps note helps but leaves the return contract underspecified.

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 schema already documents run_id, account, user_id, and project_id, including the conditional requirements. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the coverage; baseline 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+resource: poll a run for completion and retrieve its final flow outputs. It's clearly a read retrieval tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_run_history, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 phrase 'can be used to poll for completion' implies a usage context (awaiting run completion), which is helpful. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative get_run_history, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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