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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that with the ordering guarantee ("newest run first") and the fact that each row carries its run_id. It does not say what happens when results exceed the 200 cap, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

One sentence plus two terse filter clauses, front-loaded with the return semantics before the parameter detail. No filler or repetition; every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description does enough to set expectations about the return shape (rows tagged with run_id, ordered by run), and it documents the filters. The notable omission is truncation behavior at the 200-row limit, which matters for a collection-reading tool.

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 75%, so baseline is 3; the description addresses `run`, `since`, and `limit` in prose but largely restates the schema (the 200 maximum, the ISO format, the id source). The required `automation` parameter carries no added explanation in the description.

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 specifically what is returned ("What an automation collected") plus scope and ordering ("newest run first, each row with its run_id"), which distinguishes it from cotlet_automation_list or cotlet_get_call. It never explicitly names a sibling it is not, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

The filter clauses imply when to use each mode (`run` for a single run, `since` for a time window), and it points to cotlet_automation_list as the source of ids. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or statement of which sibling to pick for related tasks like inspecting an individual call.

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