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 real value beyond that: the tenant scoping, the absence of raw evidence/chat content in the payload, and the doNotPropose contract ('do not offer them again'). It does not cover retention window or what happens when no prior runs exist.

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 core purpose and the repeat-run usage cue are front-loaded, and each sentence carries operational information (boundary time, doNotPropose contract, payload exclusion). The middle sentence about access surfaces is a bit long and slightly buries the boundary semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does name the key returned elements (last run time, doNotPropose) plus a negative guarantee about raw evidence. For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, though it omits the shape of the run summary entries and any pagination behavior tied to limit.

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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter (bounds 1-20 are in the schema but undocumented). The description never mentions limit, its default, or how it interacts with reading history, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap — but the parameter name plus the hard maximum make its meaning largely self-evident.

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 ('Read the validated run summaries from prior find-and-automate runs') and scopes it to 'this tenant', plus the access surfaces (app chat, external MCP client). It also states what is NOT returned ('No raw evidence or other chat content'), which pins down the resource boundary precisely.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use at the start of a repeat run', and a sequencing constraint — read current workflow results before judging whether a problem remains solved — which implicitly routes the agent to workflow result tools. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case.

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