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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds beyond that by explaining the newest-first ordering, the hasMore pagination semantics, and the meaning of NEEDS_REVIEW status. This is valuable context that helps the agent reason about results and pagination without contradicting any 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries distinct value: scope, filtering guidance, and batch-tracking/pagination notes. 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?

Given the 10 parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential operational details: ordering, filtering strategy, hasMore semantics, special status, and the batch-tracking workaround. It leaves nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its results.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds strategic guidance on which parameters to use as filters (status, workflowId, batchId, fileNameContains) and distinguishes filtering from pagination, which helps the agent choose parameters effectively. It doesn't add per-parameter details but provides contextual grouping that goes beyond a baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List recent workflow runs') and clearly scopes it to the workflow group, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_extract_runs and list_split_runs. It also names the key filters, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Filter rather than paginate' and lists the relevant filter parameters. It also notes that workflow batches have no batch-get endpoint, so this tool is the place to track them via batchId — giving a clear alternative-condition pairing. The hasMore guidance further refines when to paginate versus narrow filters.

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