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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read profile, so the description's added value is its disclosure of return contents: job status, conclusion, timing, and step-level results. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but the annotation carries that burden.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying purpose, parameter hints, and usage sequencing with minimal waste. Slight redundancy with the schema on the owner/repo detail, but overall tight.

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 correctly fills the gap by describing the returned job/step details. Combined with readOnly annotations covering safety, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly, though return value structure is described only in prose.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's note about the 'owner/name' form and preferring the owner merely restates what the schema already says, adding no meaning beyond structured data. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the jobs and step-level details for a specific GitHub Actions workflow run.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by scoping to a single run and drilling into jobs/steps.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this after listing workflow runs to drill into a specific run and see which step failed.' It names the prerequisite flow (listing runs to get the run_id) but does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name a competing alternative by tool name.

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