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

Annotations already declare the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining that repeated polling for status is expected, which is a behavioral trait not fully captured by those annotations. It does not describe output fields, but the annotations cover the safety profile well.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second states the polling use case. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is adequate: an agent knows what the tool does and that it can be polled for status. It does not specify return fields or error behavior, but the low complexity and strong annotations make those omissions acceptable.

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?

The only parameter, run_id, is fully documented in the schema with format, pattern, and description ('The run's unique identifier'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about an agent run.' It also adds a distinguishing behavior, 'Can be polled to check status,' which separates it from listRuns (plural listing) and getRunEvaluation (evaluation-specific). This is clear enough to identify the tool among a very large sibling set.

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 sentence 'Can be polled to check status' gives a clear usage context: call this repeatedly to monitor a run's progress. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended polling pattern is evident from the description.

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