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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does well: it discloses the return ordering ('most recent first'), the cross-site scope, and the required auth scope ('runs:read'). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or pagination boundaries, but the operation is transparently non-mutating.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability, filtering/pagination, and routing guidance. The primary purpose is front-loaded with zero preamble.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description tells the agent what kind of result to expect (run history, newest-first) plus the required scope. It stops short of describing the fields of a run record, which leaves a minor gap for a list tool.

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 limit, offset, site_id, and boost_id are already documented. The description restates their roles (filter vs paginate) but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 boost runs'), the scope ('across all of the key's sites'), and the ordering ('most recent first'). It is immediately distinguishable from get_run, list_warm_runs, and list_sites.

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?

Explicitly frames this as 'the history view' and routes the agent: 'to follow a run you just created with warm_site, prefer list_warm_runs or get_run.' This names both alternatives and the condition that selects them.

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