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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds billing context ('User charge is $0.00') and hints at result-change detection, which is genuine extra information, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, or retention limits on run history.

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 tight sentences with the core payload described first and the cost note last; nothing is padded. The cost sentence is slightly tangential but still useful information for the caller.

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, the description need not explain return structure, and it correctly focuses on purpose. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, leaving only minor gaps around run ordering, retention, and when to prefer list_tasks.

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%: both limit (max 20, default 5) and task_id (source tools named) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter detail, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource ('recent runs of one scheduled task') and enumerates what each run yields (return value, change status, cost metadata), which clearly separates it from list_tasks and create_task. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implied: call this to inspect a task's run history. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (a valid task_id), and no exclusion or alternative such as list_tasks for enumerating tasks.

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