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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: contribution is opt-in, records carry no user id or step notes, results are anonymous, and program JSON is hashed locally with the canonical hash. It also describes the returned data fields.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the purpose and returned data, then covers privacy and authentication, and closes with parameter guidance. The bold 'No login needed' is a useful, scannable signal.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool returns, the privacy characteristics, the authentication requirement, and the two accepted identifier forms. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the program_hash format ('sha256:<hex>') and clarifying that the program JSON is hashed with the same canonical hash used by runtimes, which helps agents choose between the two identifier parameters.

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 runs contributed by other people for one exact program version. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_runs by emphasizing 'other people', 'contributed', and anonymous aggregate evidence.

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 gives clear context: use it for contributed, anonymous run evidence and explicitly notes no login is needed. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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