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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the 'Read-only' sentence is redundant. The description does add genuine behavior: ordering ('newest first') and a temporal scope limit ('up to a year') that constrain what an agent will actually receive, though it does not clarify whether that window is a hard cutoff or a paging boundary.

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: what it returns, what the resource means, then how to use the result. Front-loaded with the return shape and ordered by decreasing agent need. Only the trailing 'Read-only' tag is redundant with annotations.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (id, date, status, number of answers), which is the key completeness requirement here. It stops short of stating whether the list is paginated or count-limited inside the one-year window, leaving a small gap for a list tool.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already explains that 'project' accepts an id or address as returned by list_projects. The description only implies the argument through 'a project's updates' and adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List a project's updates (runs)') and immediately defines the domain term ('An update asks all of the project's prompts to its AI models once'), which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It also disambiguates from the sibling get_history by contrasting single-update reads with trend reads.

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?

Explicitly states the downstream use of the returned ids ('Use an id from here as the update input of get_overview, list_answers, get_sources or get_perception') and names the alternative for a different need ('for trends across updates, use get_history instead'). This is a complete when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else routing statement.

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