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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine prerequisite the annotations do not carry — an Advance plan key — and notes that the id variant returns run stats, which is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The plan-key prerequisite is front-loaded, though placing the operational outcome ahead of the plan caveat would be marginally more agent-friendly.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema absent but a simple return shape, the definition covers prerequisites, both invocation modes, and the differing payload. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and already documents the optional id. The description still adds meaning by tying the presence of id to a different response shape (single automation plus run stats), so it does more than restate the 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?

States a specific verb and resource, and explicitly covers the two modes: listing all automations and fetching a single automation with run stats by id. It does not name or differentiate from sibling list_* tools, but the name plus description leaves no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 id clause implies when to use the single-fetch mode ('fetch one automation with its run stats by id'), which is useful conditional guidance. However, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for other automation-related reads.

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