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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: results are sorted latest first, default to 5 runs, and include the total matching count. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The main action and ordering are front-loaded, filters and return summary follow, and the tool-to-use guidance closes the description efficiently.

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 a read-only list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it covers scope, ordering, filtering, default result count, and the relationship to run_data_source. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this correctly.

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 67%, with status and data_source_id already described in the schema. The description adds moderate parameter context by mentioning the optional filters and the default limit of 5, but it does not significantly deepen the meaning beyond what the JSON schema already provides for those parameters.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List data source runs for the authenticated application, latest first.' It clearly states the tool's scope, ordering, and optional filters, and it even names the related run_data_source tool, making the distinction between triggering and tracking a run obvious.

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 description gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to track the progress of a run triggered via run_data_source.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative analytics/read tools.

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