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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that detection is conservative, which complements the openWorldHint and helps the agent calibrate expectations about completeness.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The cautious-detection caveat and the fallback to ourpr_list_runs are placed exactly where they add decision value.

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?

With one optional parameter, strong safety annotations, an output schema, and a clear detection-behavior caveat, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, so the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is fine because the schema already carries the burden.

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 ('Interval sessions found across the history') and adds the concrete payload ('with reps and distances'). It also differentiates itself from ourpr_list_runs by noting this tool only contains detected interval sessions, so an agent can tell what it returns.

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 description gives clear practical guidance: detection is conservative, and any missed session is still available in ourpr_list_runs. This effectively names a fallback alternative, though it does not explicitly cover when to prefer this over the closely related sibling ourpr_detect_reps.

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