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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are ordered most-recent-first, paginated via nextCursor, and can omit export URLs when unavailable, which flags potentially missing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource before enumerating fields. It is slightly dense with an inline field list, but every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies ordering and pagination behavior, leaving only the list-vs-single vs cancel routing to inference, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and all three parameters (limit, cursor, selfOnly) are documented there. The description only echoes the pagination cursor concept via nextCursor, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb ('Return a page of') plus specific resource ('workflow runs'), with useful scope detail like ordering ('most recent first') and returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_workflow_run, so an agent must infer the singular/plural split.

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 on when to reach for this versus get_workflow_run (single run) or cancel_workflow_run. The list semantics are implied by the name, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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