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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include statuses, but says nothing about ordering, recency window, pagination, or what to do when more builds exist than the limit.

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?

One sentence, zero redundancy, and the scope modifiers ('authenticated user's', 'recent', 'with their statuses') are front-loaded before the noun phrase.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only list tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, the description tells the agent what it gets back at a high level. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or what happens once the limit is hit.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter already documents default 10 and max 50. The description adds no constraint, ordering, or formatting 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... PromptUI builds') and scopes it to the authenticated user's recent builds with statuses. It does not name a sibling such as get_build_status to draw the single-vs-list boundary explicitly, so it stays at 4.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'recent' hints that this is for a recent-activity listing rather than a specific build, and 'authenticated user's' implies auth is required. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like get_build_status.

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