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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the per-row return shape, cursor pagination, and the PRO+ plan gate requirement. No contradictions; it stops short of rate-limit or retention details, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by filters, return fields, pagination, alternatives, and plan gate, each in a compact clause. No filler sentences; every clause carries actionable 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 compensates by listing the returned fields per row, and it covers filtering, pagination, sibling routing, and a plan gate. An agent has everything needed to call this filtered-list tool 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 only 20% (just limit), so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it enumerates workflowId, projectId, and the full status enum, and notes cursor pagination. Only 'limit' is left to the schema, making this solid compensation for the low coverage.

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 workflow run history') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming list_workflow_approvals and cancel_workflow_run as different intended uses. An agent can identify this tool 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'PREFER list_workflow_approvals for the decide-now inbox; PREFER cancel_workflow_run to abort an in-flight run,' and adds a plan-gate note ('automations (PRO+)'). It states both when to use this tool and when to prefer alternatives.

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