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 structurally. The description adds only one behavioral detail beyond that: results are limited to "recent" runs, which hints at a bounded, non-exhaustive result set. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a "run" record contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but as structure it is clean.

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?

The tool is simple (one read-only parameter, no output schema), so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. Still, an agent cannot tell what a "run" is, how far back "recent" extends, or whether results are paginated, which are meaningful gaps for even a simple listing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required collection_id parameter, so the schema supplies only a type and minLength. The phrase "started from a list" loosely maps collection_id to the list in question, but there is no clarification of format, whether it accepts a name or ID, or what happens with an unknown ID.

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?

The description gives a verb ("Lists") and a resource ("runs started from a list"), so the basic operation is discernible. However, it uses "list" while the tool name and parameter say "collection," and it never distinguishes these runs from related siblings such as get_collection_changes, get_investigation_results, or list_investigation_functions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_collection, get_investigation_batch, or get_investigation_results. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line summary.

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