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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the 'last five' limitation and that both match and application runs are included, along with counts and status.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core information without fluff. It front-loads the main result and avoids repeating annotation-provided details.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the agent will receive: the last five runs of each type with counts and status. It could be slightly more explicit about the return structure, but the absence of parameters makes this largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. With no schema properties to document, the baseline is appropriately high and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the last five match runs and the last five application runs, including counts and status. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that check a single run's status, such as get_match_status or get_apply_run_status.

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 and title imply this is for viewing recent run history, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of the status-focused siblings. There is no guidance about using get_match_status or get_apply_run_status for checking the status of a specific individual run.

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