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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: 'Large fields become explicit metadata references' describes the return shape, and 'clear cursor when changing filters' describes pagination etiquette. It does not disclose rate limits or auth requirements, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then dense but relevant supporting clauses. The semicolon-separated run-on is slightly heavy for one paragraph, but every clause carries information and nothing is 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?

For a 17-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is not complete enough: it explains purpose, cursor handling, and a few params plus a hint about metadata references, but omits the meaning of most filters and gives no sense of the result shape. Adequate to start invoking, but gaps remain.

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 0% across 17 parameters, so the description must carry the load and only partially does. It usefully explains the opaque ones — 'q is a literal run/scenario ID or scenario-name prefix' and 'Dates and origin refer to batch submission' — but leaves roughly a dozen params (issue, execution, minimumLevel, dimensionId, repository, workflowRunId, etc.) undocumented. The high-value clarifications on ambiguous params lift it above a bare minimum.

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+resource: 'Filter actual executions in one authorized batch,' and clarifies the resource granularity with 'Each run is one scenario/configuration/repetition,' which distinguishes runs from the sibling firedrill_batches/batch tools. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Clear cursor when changing filters' and 'read the selected run's report/value for evidence' give implied usage and a soft routing hint toward other tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus firedrill_batches, firedrill_batch, or firedrill_batch_value.

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