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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: default ordering, the hasMore contract, and a clear policy on when to paginate. There is no contradiction with 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, followed by filters and pagination guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a fully documented 10-parameter schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the remaining behavioral knowledge an agent needs: ordering, filtering strategy, and pagination semantics. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping the four important filters (status, classifierId, batchId, fileNameContains) and explaining the nextPageToken use case, which is more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent classify runs' plus the ordering guarantee 'newest first'. The '(classify group)' tag helps distinguish this from sibling list_*_runs tools, so an agent can identify the right tool immediately.

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?

The description gives strong practical guidance: prefer filters over pagination, use nextPageToken only when every item is needed, and treat hasMore as a signal to narrow filters. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as get_classify_run, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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