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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the 'Get' verb. The description adds that the tool retrieves status, counts, and errors, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. It provides marginal additional context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words: a single sentence stating the action and return fields, followed by the API endpoint. Every sentence is informative.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (status, counts, errors). It is missing guidance about pagination or potential size of the response, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (id), and its schema description is complete (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, though it does mention the API endpoint. Given full schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 states the tool gets a single sync run by ID and lists what it returns (status, counts, errors). The verb 'Get' and resource 'sync run' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling list tools by targeting a single resource.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like census_list_sync_runs. The description implies usage for retrieving one specific run by ID, but does not mention when not to use it or distinguish from similar get tools for other resources.

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