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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: the result ordering (newest first) and the fact that both delegated jobs and scheduled tasks are included. It does not discuss pagination semantics, though the cursor parameters are documented in the schema.

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 compact sentence with the resource, ordering, scope, and filters front-loaded; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. The only minor gap is that pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema descriptions rather than being surfaced in the tool description.

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 limit, status, task_id, and both cursors are fully documented structurally, making 3 the baseline. The description names the status and task filters but adds no format, enum, or default detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (the account's task runs) and it defines what counts as a run — 'delegated jobs and scheduled tasks alike' — which meaningfully separates it from get_run, get_script_run, and wait_for_run. The ordering guarantee ('newest first') is stated up front.

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?

It indicates the purpose of the two filter parameters, so usage is implied, but it never says when to prefer this over a single-run sibling (get_run) or when not to use it. No explicit alternatives or prerequisites are given.

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