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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already declaring the safety profile, the description goes further: it documents the return envelope {data, nextCursor, hasMore}, the null behavior for unavailable issues, and the exact cross-page invariant (same org and filters). This is the kind of contract detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and filters, then the attention flag, then return shape and the pagination instruction. Dense but every clause carries information; the sentences run long but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is otherwise missing: the response envelope, null handling, and the exact next-page call pattern. An agent can paginate correctly from this text alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including needs_attention and cursor. The description restates the needs_attention scoping and the cursor-retention rule, adding modest value beyond the schema's own wording rather than new semantics.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Page through org-scoped runs') plus the exact filter dimensions, and implicitly contrasts with the single-run sibling by noting items use the same projection as get_workflow_run. An agent can tell this is the paginated list endpoint versus the singular get_workflow_run without opening the 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 clear conditions for the needs_attention flag and an explicit pagination loop ('while hasMore is true, pass nextCursor as cursor with the same organization_id and filters'). It states read-only scope but never names a sibling as the alternative for a known run ID, so routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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