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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses ordering, the 50-per-page cap, the hasNextPage continuation cue, read-permission scoping, the precise isBlocked lifecycle rule, and the fields each run carries including failure reason. What is missing is any note on ordering stability or pagination caveats beyond hasNextPage.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, scope, ordering and page size before moving to the polling recipe and the field inventory. The final enumeration of return fields is dense but informative; it reads as one long paragraph, though no sentence is truly wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by describing pagination behavior, permission scoping, blocker semantics and the shape of each returned run. For a six-parameter list tool this is close to complete, though an agent still has to infer the exact response envelope.

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 every parameter (page, count, state, spaceKey, assigneeIds, excludeBlocked) is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the excludeBlocked polling pattern and mentions hasNextPage, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists agent runs'), plus scope ('issues the caller can read'), ordering ('oldest first') and page size ('up to 50 per page'). Combined with the polling sentence it is unmistakably the read/list counterpart to claim_agent_run, create_agent_run and finish_agent_run rather than any of them.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: a runner polls state 'Ready' with excludeBlocked=true and claims the first eligible run, which implicitly routes the agent to claim_agent_run next. It also points to get_issue for blocker links. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions explicitly, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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