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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context: Pro+ plan requirement, cached snapshot behavior, default 7-day window, and the exact returned run fields. It also clarifies the data source limitation, which is genuinely useful beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact and well-structured. The key distinction (cached vs live) and usage precondition appear first, while the return fields are listed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 read-only query with no output schema, the description covers the essential missing context: return fields and units of measure. Together with the fully described input schema, annotations, and the Pro-plan requirement, an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds the default time window and return-field context, but does not add deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation: getting cached run history for a flow from the Power Clarity store. It distinguishes this from live-flow tools by explicitly saying the data is from a stored snapshot, not live from the Power Automate API, which separates it from siblings like get_live_flow_runs.

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 clear usage context: it is for cached run history, defaults to the last 7 days, and requires Pro+ plan. It implies the alternative is a live API call by saying the data is 'not live', but it does not explicitly name get_live_flow_runs or state when to choose one over the other.

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