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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering, filter options, and pagination via next_cursor. As a read-only list operation, it doesn't need to discuss destructive side effects, and the core behaviors are well covered.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and options, the second explains pagination. No redundant wording or unnecessary detail; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with pagination and filters. The description covers key behavior, pagination semantics, and filter options. Since there is no output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but 'List executions' adequately implies the response.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination flow (next_cursor → cursor) and grouping since/until as a 'created_at time range', going beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the resource (executions), action (list), scope (this account), ordering (newest first), and optional filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_execution (single execution) and replay_execution by focusing on the listing use case.

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 states a clear use case: listing executions with optional status or time-range filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, but the 'List this account's executions' framing gives sufficient context for when to use it.

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