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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the default sort order ('newest first'), the presence and meaning of a hasMore flag, and the recommended pagination strategy. This gives the agent insight into how the API behaves when items exceed the page size. The description is consistent with annotations, adding value rather than contradicting them.

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 description is two sentences with the main action front-loaded ('List recent extract runs, newest first'). Every clause carries information: default ordering, filter list, pagination semantics, and the recommended usage pattern. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 10-parameter list tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral guidance: default ordering, filtering preference, and cursor handling. Required-parameter constraints (workspaceId, environment) and parameter formats are already documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing. The only minor gap is the unexplained '(extract group)' term, but the surrounding clarity compensates.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds value by identifying which parameters are intended as filters and by prioritizing them over pagination, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also ties nextPageToken to the hasMore semantics, enriching the bare cursor definition.

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 the action (List), the resource (recent extract runs), and the default ordering (newest first). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_extractors or list_extractor_versions, which target different resources. The only minor ambiguity is the parenthetical '(extract group)', but it does not obscure the core purpose.

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 explicit direction to prefer filters (status, extractorId, batchId, fileNameContains) over pagination, and explains when to use nextPageToken ('only when every item is needed'). It also clarifies the meaning of hasMore, providing clear decision-making context. However, it does not contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_extract_run or list_extractors, so no when-not-to-use/exclusion guidance is present.

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