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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'recent' implying time-ordered results, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit (though schema mentions it), or the shape of the returned list. With annotations covering the core safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise with no wasted words. However, it essentially rephrases the tool name without adding context about parameters or usage, making it too terse to be genuinely helpful despite being structurally compact.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what a run list contains (e.g., status, timestamps), but it does not. Combined with missing usage guidance and param details, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and constraints.

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 documentation covers `limit` and `workflowId` with descriptions, but `status` lacks any description. The tool description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, failing to explain the status filter or result limits; it does not compensate for the incomplete schema.

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 'List recent runs for a workflow' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves a collection of runs scoped to a workflow. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `get_workflow_run` (single run) and `list_workflows` (workflows themselves), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as `get_workflow_run` for a single run. It does not mention that `workflowId` is required or that `status` and `limit` can filter results, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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