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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, so the trailing 'Read-only' adds nothing. The description does add genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering and the exact shape of each run record (trigger type, outcome vocabulary including 'already covered — nothing created', result, error). It omits ordering/pagination interaction with limit and what happens when the automation is not found.

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 a tight colon list; every element (ordering, trigger kinds, outcome values, returned fields) carries information. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 usefully substitutes by enumerating the fields returned per run. For a two-parameter list tool the only real omissions are limit behavior/default and error handling for an ambiguous automation name.

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 50%: the automation parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-when-single-automation rule. The limit parameter has only min/max bounds in the schema and is never mentioned in the description — no default, no explanation that truncation happens from the newest end. The description does not compensate for that gap.

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 names the exact resource and scope: 'the run history of an automation, newest first.' An agent can immediately tell this is a read of execution history rather than the automation definitions themselves. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (automation_get / automation_list), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no named alternative. The enumerated fields (trigger, outcome, error) imply a debugging/verification use case, which is enough for the agent to infer intent, but nothing tells it when to prefer automation_get or automation_list instead.

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