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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it reveals server-side filtering across all history, explains that `total` is the true count while `runs` is only one page, clarifies that `search` accepts both short and full session IDs, and notes that `failedOnly` includes inferred failures. It does not cover ordering, response structure beyond `total`/`runs`, or potential rate limits, so it is not a 5, but it is unusually transparent for a list tool.

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; every sentence earns its place. Use cases are front-loaded, the server-side filtering and pagination semantics are packed into two sentences, and the routing to automation_report is the final punchline. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool is for, how to locate runs, how pagination works, and when to use an alternative. It does not state the default sort order or mention whether results are newest-first, which would help agents interpret a page of results, but the essential operational knowledge is present.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: `search` matches both the 8-character UI form and full ID, `offset` is intended to paginate using `total`, `failedOnly` aligns with the tool's own verdict, and `limit`'s default is also the ceiling. This is additive value rather than schema repetition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Find and list your automation runs' — and immediately grounds it in concrete user intents ('how did my tests go', 'what failed recently'). It also differentiates itself from nearby tools by noting it is for locating runs by description rather than by ID, and explicitly routes aggregate stats to automation_report.

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 explicit when-to-use signals with natural-language examples, distinguishes ID-based lookup from described-run lookup, and names the alternative for aggregate pass-rate analysis ('For pass rates and aggregate breakdowns use automation_report'). This is clear routing that leaves little to inference.

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