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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that results are ordered newest first, which the structured fields don't convey; the enumerated return fields are redundant given an output schema exists.

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, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then the two use cases. No filler and nothing misplaced.

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 a readOnly annotation covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: ordering and the conditions that select this tool over its siblings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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%, and the schema itself carries strong guidance ('Never invent one', 'Raise it only if the user asked for more'). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the recent runs of one workflow) plus a scope qualifier (newest first). It implicitly separates itself from single-run siblings like get_run_status by being a listing tool, but never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 two concrete trigger conditions: recovering a lost run_id that run_workflow returned, and checking whether a run is still in flight before starting another. Clear context for when to reach for it, though it names no explicit alternative or exclusion.

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