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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context (returns status values). It mentions 'authenticated run' but does not elaborate on error handling or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 conveys all essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the key verb and result types.

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 with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the bare minimum. However, it lacks details about the return format, potential error cases, or additional fields (e.g., timestamps). Slightly incomplete given the lack of an output schema.

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% with run_id described as 'AgentFarm run identifier.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning; it only mentions 'authenticated run' which is context but not parameter-specific. 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 clearly states it returns one of four statuses (queued, running, succeeded, failed) for an authenticated run. It specifies the resource (run) and verb (get status), and distinguishes from siblings like agentfarm_get_run_result and agentfarm_create_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?

The description implies usage for checking run progress but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., agentfarm_get_run_result for results). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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