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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits beyond the schema: only runs from the last 30 days are returned, and run context is omitted unless includeContext=true. It says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior across pages, or result size limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then filters, then the context caveat. The sentence enumerating returned fields (workflow, initiator, state, finish time) earns its place only because there is no output schema; otherwise it would be padding.

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 12-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, default ordering, retention window, and the includeContext toggle, and sketches the returned fields. The two required infrastructure parameters (session_id, context) are left entirely to the schema, which handles them at length, so the omission is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by grouping the filter parameters (workflowIds, initiatedBy, entityId, startedAfter/startedBefore) into a coherent filtering story and attaching the 30-day retention caveat that constrains date filters. It does not clarify the interplay of searchQuery with the other filters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List workflow runs across the workspace'), plus scope ('across the workspace') and default ordering ('newest first'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular getWorkflowRun or listWorkflows siblings, so the differentiation is implied by the plural 'runs' rather than stated.

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?

It states a concrete use case — 'Use this to answer whether a workflow fired and whether it succeeded' — and enumerates the filters that shape the query. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to getWorkflowRun for a single run's detail, which is the obvious alternative.

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