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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: newest-first ordering, the 25 default limit, offset-based paging, and the shape of each returned item. No output schema exists, so the return-shape hints are useful, though 'funnel' is left unexplained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering before filters and paging. There is minor redundancy between the returned 'who made it' field list and the actor/client_id guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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 six parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate: it covers purpose, ordering, filtering and paging. It omits explanation of the required connection_id workflow (left to the schema) and never clarifies what 'funnel' contains, leaving a small gap for an agent interpreting 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 the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the actor/client_id distinction ('who made them; each run says who made it and whether an agent did'), which the schema alone does not convey, and it restates the limit default and offset paging semantics.

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 this connection's runs, newest first') and defines the domain term ('A run is one execution of an operational tool over a scoped set of records'). It also enumerates the returned fields (status, counts, funnel), which cleanly separates it from get_run (single) and list_plans (different resource).

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?

Gives concrete filtering guidance: pass object_type to narrow by target and actor/client_id to narrow by actor, plus paging via offset. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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