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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds minimal context ('recent', 'one agent'), but does not disclose ordering, time window, pagination, or how limit affects results. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a five-word fragment with zero filler words and no wasted structure. Every word contributes meaning, and the key scoping ('one agent') is front-loaded.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description must carry more weight. It fails to explain what a 'run' looks like in the result, how 'recent' is defined, or what limit controls. An agent can likely make a basic call, but it cannot fully anticipate the response or the semantics of the optional parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It only maps 'one agent' to the agent parameter and says nothing about the format or required identifier. The limit parameter is entirely unmentioned, leaving its role as page size, maximum count, or truncation unclear.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('recent runs') and its scope ('one agent'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like runvouch_run_start/end/proof and runvouch_status. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', so it falls just short of a 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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runvouch_alerts or runvouch_status. It is only implicit that this is a history/query tool, with no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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