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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result is auth-scoped to the caller's accessible projects, ordering is newest-first, and pagination is driven by a nextCursor that must be replayed with the same filters.

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: scope and ordering first, then the unit of a run, then the return shape, then pagination. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, the return-value enumeration is mildly redundant, and the remaining gap is routing guidance versus sibling get/list tools. Otherwise the description covers scope, ordering, filtering intent, and the pagination contract needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, and the description goes slightly beyond by explaining the cursor chaining contract (pass nextCursor back as cursor with the same filters) rather than just restating the field. It doesn't otherwise add syntax for role/status enums or the projectId/issueId identifiers, which are already well documented in the schema.

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 and resource (list agent runs), plus scope (caller's accessible projects) and ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from get_agent_run and list_scheduled_task_runs. The extra sentence defining a run as one agent in its own sandbox removes any ambiguity about the unit of listing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description covers what is listed and how pagination works, but never says when to prefer this over get_agent_run for a single run or how it relates to list_scheduled_task_runs. An agent can infer the listing role from the name alone, so this is adequate but not prescriptive.

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