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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered by recency, can be project-scoped or org-wide, and include a specific set of attributes. The output schema covers return shape, so no major behavioral gap remains.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the most important scoping information and then lists the returned attributes. Every part of the description earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given no required parameters, a fully documented input schema, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description supplies the remaining essentials: ordering and optional scope. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions (limit range/default and project_id semantics). The tool description mainly reinforces the optional project scope without adding new parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('runs'), and immediately anchors scope with 'organisation's most recent runs (optionally for one project)'. The field list distinguishes it from single-run tools like get_run and from mutation tools like cancel_run or start_run.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool lists recent runs, optionally scoped to a project, and the schema adds 'omit for the whole organisation'. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus siblings, but the resource and scope make the intended use fairly obvious.

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