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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, so the description adds the real behavioral payload: finished one-time Automations are excluded by default and surfaced via the finished_hidden count, enabled/watch/scheduled mean armed but not necessarily run, and durable flows carry a 7-day health window with failure_streak and model cost. No pagination or ordering behavior is mentioned, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with scope, then exclusions, then field interpretation, then the sibling handoff — a sensible order. Dense but nearly every clause carries semantics; only 'If it can fire in the future, it appears here' is decorative restatement of the preceding list.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does: it names the row fields (last_run_at, latest_run, active_run_count), the finished_hidden counter, and durable-flow health contents. An agent can decide and interpret results without further documentation.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema text: it defines what 'finished' actually means (off, with status completed or cancelled) and gives a concrete motivating case for setting the flag. That goes past the schema's one-line gloss.

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 ('List every Automation') and enumerates the scope it spans — notifications, recurring tasks, scheduled behavior, event rules, durable flows — plus the rule that unifies them ('If it can fire in the future, it appears here'). It also draws the line against the sibling automation_get by declaring rows are summaries.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use include_finished when checking whether a past reminder fired, and use get-one-by-id when the definition, schedule, or full health is needed. It also tells the agent which fields to consult to answer 'has it ever run' versus 'is it armed'.

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