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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (counts and errors), but says nothing about ordering, retention window, or behavior when an automation has never run.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are packed into one compact clause. Slight redundancy with the title 'Automation run history' but nothing that wastes the agent's attention.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what the response contains, which is exactly the gap an absent output schema leaves. Only ordering/retention details are missing, which are minor for a log-listing call.

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%, with both parameters documented in-schema (automation_id as a UUID from a list/search tool, limit with default 10 and max 50). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieving recent run history for a search automation, and enumerates the fields returned (timing, found/saved/enriched counts, errors). This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling spur_run_search_automation, though the description never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: 'Recent runs of a search automation' suggests post-run inspection, but there is no statement of when to call this versus spur_run_search_automation or spur_list_search_automations, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid automation_id from the list tool.

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