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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only adds modest context like 'recent' and project identifier options. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering) are disclosed, but the safety profile is fully covered by 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?

Two concise sentences with the main purpose first, then parameter guidance. No fluff or repetition of schema fields. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and strong sibling coverage, the description is adequate. It covers the essential identification parameters but lacks mention of pagination, default limit, or sorting. Given the tool's low complexity, this is sufficient.

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%, so the description carries the load. It explains appId and appFullName in detail, including how to find appId and the format of appFullName. It omits explanation of 'limit' and 'status', though 'status' has an enum and 'limit' is self-explanatory. This partial compensation is strong enough for a 4.

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 clearly states the tool lists recent EAS workflow runs for a project, which is specific and distinct from siblings like expo_workflow_info or expo_workflow_logs. The verb 'lists' and resource 'workflow runs' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to specify the project using either appId or appFullName, with the source of appId and a format example. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings for when to choose list over info/logs, but the purpose is clear enough for typical use.

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