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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: newest-first ordering, secret redaction, and a 30-day retention window. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or approximate result shape, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by ordering, redaction, and retention. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and 25% param coverage, the description covers purpose, ordering, redaction, and retention adequately but omits how to page through results or what a run record contains. An agent can call it but will have to infer cursor usage from the schema alone.

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 only 25% — just 'name' is documented — and the description says nothing about 'limit' (default 20, max 100), 'cursor' (pagination token), or the required 'websiteId'. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists a website's server function runs') plus ordering ('newest first') and the run types covered ('http calls and form submissions alike'). It is clearly distinct from websiteFunctions_runs_get and websiteFunctions_invoke, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'for `http` calls and form submissions alike' implicitly scopes when to use it, and 'newest first' hints at the listing use case. But there is no explicit routing to websiteFunctions_runs_get for a single run, no guidance on when to page versus fetch more, and no stated prerequisites beyond websiteId.

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