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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing ordering (newest first), filtering capabilities, and the list of returned fields. It doesn't mention pagination details, but that's a minor gap given the annotations cover safety.

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 key fields, followed by filtering options and a usage hint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides enough detail on purpose, fields, filtering, and usage. It omits explicit pagination semantics, but the default limit and cursors are inferable from the schema, so the tool is callable without missing critical information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains status, trigger_source, and search filters, but does not cover after, before, limit, or workflow_id semantics. Workflow_id is self-evident as required, but the pagination parameters (after/before) and limit are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 executions of a workflow, with a specific verb (list), resource (executions), ordering (newest first), and the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_execution_status by focusing on multiple executions.

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 explicitly says 'Use to find triggered/scheduled/failed runs and their execution_ids,' providing a clear use case. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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