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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — no mention of ordering, result shape, pagination behavior, or the customerId superadmin restriction already hinted at in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is lean, though it errs toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity given the tool's six parameters.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the bare minimum. Annotations handle safety and the schema handles parameters, but return ordering, pagination semantics, and sibling routing (get_run vs sync_runs) are absent.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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+resource ("List runs"), so an agent can distinguish it from get_run/create_run/delete_run at a glance. However, "optionally filtered by agent" undersells the tool: the schema supports status, hasInsights, and customerId filtering too, so the stated scope is narrower than reality.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_run (single run) or sync_runs, and no mention of pagination workflow even though cursor/limit exist. Usage is only implied by the name.

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