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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover those. It does add useful context about ordering ('newest first') and scope ('delegated jobs and scheduled tasks alike'), but it doesn't mention pagination or result format. No contradiction 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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second covers filtering. Every word adds value.

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?

Given that the tool has 5 parameters including pagination cursorsaine, the description covers the essential behavior (listing all runs, newest first) and filter options. It omits pagination, but the schema already documents those parameters, and the tool is relatively simple. The description adequately sets expectations for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., 'filter by status or task' repeats the status and task parameters). The ordering keyword adds some value but doesn't clarify any specific parameter behavior 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?

The description clearly states the resource (task runs), the action (list), the scope (account's runs), and distinguishes between delegated jobs and scheduled tasks. It also mentions filtering by status or task, giving a complete picture of the tool's purpose.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools like get_run or cancel_run. It doesn't mention that get_run is for retrieving a single run or that this is the list operation. No alternative scenarios are discussed.

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