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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context by disclosing the returned fields, including failed step info, which is valuable because no output schema is present.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted or duplicated wording.

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 low-complexity list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, and returned fields. It does not restate schema defaults such as the environment behavior, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the input schema fully documents limit, flowId, status, and environment. The description only says 'optional filters' and adds no syntax, default, or exclusion details beyond what the schema already provides, fitting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list recent flow runs, with optional filters. It clearly distinguishes from ap_get_run by emphasizing a list rather than a single run, but does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools.

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 implies usage by saying 'List recent flow runs with optional filters,' which gives an agent a clear context for when listing is appropriate. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance against siblings like ap_get_run or ap_list_flows.

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