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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, it adds little beyond annotations: it does not define what 'recent' means, whether results are paginated, or what scope the run list covers.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the missing scope and parameter context handled in other dimensions.

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 tool with two required identifiers, no schema parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent still lacks required context about what the IDs mean, what 'recent' covers, and how to interpret the returned runs.

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?

Both required parameters, projectId and siteId, have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention them at all. It does not explain that these IDs are required or how they scope the listed runs, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing recent runs of the outreach agent. It is clear enough to distinguish this from overview, exceptions, or thread-listing tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_outreach_automation_overview, list_outreach_automation_exceptions, or list_outreach_threads. The context of 'recent runs' is implied, but no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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