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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first'), tenant scoping, and available filters, but says nothing about the tenant_key auth requirement, pagination/limit ceilings, or what a returned run includes. Some behavioral value added, but the safety/auth profile is undocumented.

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; the verb+resource+scope lead, and the parenthetical enum lists earn their space by documenting otherwise-absent value sets. No wasted words.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with no output schema, and the description covers scope, ordering, and filters, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around pagination and return shape.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by enumerating the accepted status values (queued|running|done|error|timeout|cancelled) and trigger values (call|job|schedule|event|chain), which the schema leaves as bare strings with no enums.

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 this tenant's recent runs') with scope ('this tenant's'), ordering ('newest first'), and the filterable axes. It is immediately distinguishable from host.runs.get, host.runs.cancel, host.runs.purge, and host.runs.wait.

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 implied by the description — an agent infers 'use this to enumerate runs' — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to siblings like host.runs.get for a single run. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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