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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are newest first, span multiple run categories, and include the kind and id needed for subsequent retrieval calls. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but those are secondary here.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds usage context in a second short sentence. There is no filler, and every clause contributes to selection or invocation understanding.

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?

Given the output schema and complete input schema, the description need not enumerate return fields. It still provides the essential selection context: what is listed, ordering, and how returned identifiers are used downstream, which is enough for correct invocation.

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 fully documents both parameters, including the kind enum and limit bounds/default. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or filtering details beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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: list the workspace's recent simulations. It also specifies scope across multiple run kinds and differentiates the tool by explaining that it returns kind and id for use with aetherya_get_result or aetherya_get_brief, so the agent can tell it apart from result-fetching siblings.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: use this to find earlier work instead of re-running it, and indicates that returned kind/id values feed follow-up tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other list tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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