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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are ordered newest first, but it omits pagination behavior, default filtering, and whether all matching cases are returned.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and efficient, with no filler. However, it is nearly identical to the title and could have used the same space to add genuinely new information rather than restating the title.

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 list tool with 9 parameters, 2 required fields, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return shape, pagination via cursor, default sort behavior, or how the required company and environment scoping works, leaving key operational details to 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?

The description mentions 'status, plan approval and date filters', which vaguely maps to some parameters, but it does not explain the kind, sort, cursor, executed, company, or environment parameters. With 9 parameters and only 67% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (notably kind, sort, and cursor).

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 investigation and execution runs across cases') and adds ordering ('newest first') plus filter categories. It is clear enough to distinguish this from a simple cases or investigations list, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling summer_investigations_list.

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 says what the tool lists but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of summer_investigations_list, summer_cases_list, or summer_events_list. It also does not state any prerequisites, such as that company and environment are required or that pagination uses a cursor.

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