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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two non-obvious behavioral traits: results are ordered newest-first and paged results are a partial slice rather than a full-history ranking, which prevents the agent from misreading completeness.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased ('not a full-history fastest/slowest ranking') but still compact and earns its place as a warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description omits the meaning of window (including the null default), filters, and per_page, leaving the agent without enough information to call it correctly.

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 all four top-level parameters, and the description never explains what window, filters, or per_page mean or what window=null defaults to. Only the word 'Page' loosely gestures at pagination, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented in both schema and description.

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 latest stored runs') plus the ordering ('newest first'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The second sentence implicitly differentiates it from the ranking siblings (e.g. 9apes_rank_jobs) but never names them.

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 caveat that page results are 'not a full-history fastest/slowest ranking' hints at when not to use this tool, but it never names the alternative sibling (9apes_rank_jobs) or states the conditions for choosing between them. Usage is only implied.

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