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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, each row includes cost charged and origin, and the call is free of charge. It omits pagination behavior and default result count, which the cursor/limit params imply exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and ordering stated first and no filler. Every clause carries information; the trailing "Free." is terse but purposeful.

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 four-param, no-required-argument listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what a returned row contains (rows, cost, source) and the ordering. It leaves the pagination contract undefined — no default limit, no explanation of how `cursor` advances — which matters for a capped listing tool.

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 25% — only `source` is documented in the schema, and the description restates its mcp/addon values rather than extending it. The mention of "AI, verify and scrape runs" maps usefully onto the `type` enum, but `limit` (max 50) and `cursor` are given no meaning anywhere, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 resource (recent AI, verify and scrape runs in this workspace) with ordering (newest first) and the fields returned (rows, cost, source). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_run / get_run_rows, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus get_run (single run detail) or get_run_rows (rows for one run). The single word "Free" is a mild selection hint toward cheap listing rather than drill-down, but no when-not or alternative is named.

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