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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the returned envelope {data, nextCursor, hasMore}, the cursor-continuation contract, the null behavior for unavailable issues, and the projection shared with get_workflow_run. It stops short of describing ordering or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and filters, then pagination contract, then the read-only disclaimer. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return envelope and pagination protocol, which is what an agent most needs for a list tool with 11 parameters. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor gaps like default ordering remain unstated.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters including needs_attention, cursor, and the status enum. The description reinforces the filter set and the needs_attention semantics but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (page through) and resource (org-scoped workflow runs) plus the filter dimensions, and explicitly references the sibling get_workflow_run for the projection. An agent can distinguish this list tool from get_workflow_run, start_workflow, and cancel_workflow_run without opening any 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 concrete usage conditions: filter by issue/epic/status/starter/date, use needs_attention for failed or approval runs you started or own native issues, and the exact pagination loop (pass nextCursor as cursor with the same organization_id and filters). It also rules out the mutation path ('never starts or changes a run'). No explicit naming of a competing list alternative, but the routing is clear.

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