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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains statuses, trigger data, per-step results, and the semantics of skipped versus paused runs. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'run history' strongly implies no side effects.

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 purpose and use case are front-loaded, followed by useful behavioral details without filler. It is dense but each clause earns its place; slightly overlong compared to the leanest examples, but well organized.

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 no output schema, the description adequately supplies return-value semantics: statuses, trigger data, per-step details, and explanations for skipped and paused runs. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool 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 100%, and both id and limit are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states the exact purpose: run history for one workflow, newest first, up to 100 runs. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like workflows_get (workflow configuration) and workflows_run_now (triggering runs).

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: use this when a workflow 'did nothing' or the user asks what it did. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to cover run history, so the context is clear enough.

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