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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts the annotations do not: results are bounded to recent runs, and error information is included in the output. It stops short of saying how many runs are returned or whether the list is truncated.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler, and the two payload facts (scope and recency/errors) are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to adequate, but it never bounds the result set or explains the recency window, and with no output schema the phrase 'with errors' is the agent's only clue about return shape.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. 'For one routine' does signal that routine_id scopes the run list, but the description never states that it accepts a UUID or where that identifier comes from (presumably list_routines), leaving format and provenance to the schema.

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 names a specific resource ('runs for one routine') and a scope qualifier ('recent'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling list_routines that returns the routines themselves rather than their runs. It falls short of a 5 only because the verb is implicit and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the drill-down companion to list_routines, and nothing states what to do if no runs exist or how far back 'recent' reaches.

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