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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results can be filtered by status or contact, but says nothing about pagination defaults, ordering, or how many runs are returned per call — context an agent would want for a paged list endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves no room for the pagination or sibling-routing context that would have made it more useful.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameters. Missing are result ordering, pagination behavior, and any differentiation from list-contact-automation-runs, which an agent would need to pick 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 coverage is 80%, so id, page, per_page and contact_id are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the two filter parameters (status, contact) without adding format, default, or enum detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 runs of an automation") and names the optional filters, so the agent knows it returns run records for one automation. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling list-contact-automation-runs, which returns a similar resource from the contact side.

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?

"Optionally by status or contact" implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to list-contact-automation-runs or get-automation-run for single-run lookups. Usage is inferable from the name and filters rather than stated.

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