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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (name, run counts by status, last run time) and the result ceiling (50 default, 100 max), which goes beyond the annotation set.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return payload and the boundary limit. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the exclusion lands last where it is most useful.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still characterizes them briefly. With annotations covering safety and a fully described 2-parameter schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so both projectId and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the pagination defaults ('50 by default and 100 at most') and the single-project scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 and resource ('list durable workflows') and scopes it to a single project with per-status run counts and last run time. The final clause 'Not for individual runs' explicitly separates it from list_workflow_runs and get_workflow_run, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when someone asks which durable workflows a Croncool project runs, or how many runs are running, pending, completed, failed or cancelled') plus an explicit exclusion ('Not for individual runs'). Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use are stated, with the alternative behavior implied by the exclusion.

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