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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: steps are returned in order, each carries "what happened," and send steps expose a message_id for follow-up. With no output schema, this return-shape detail is the main source of clarity; it omits things like pagination or error-step handling, so it stops short of 5.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the follow-up routing appended last. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, step content, and the message_id follow-up path — enough to invoke and chain correctly. Minor gaps (pagination, run_id sourcing) are not serious here.

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 100% and there is a single, straightforward run_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for run_id beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb+resource ("List the steps of an automation run in order") and clarifies the scope as a single run's steps, which separates it from list_automation_runs. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-identical sibling list_journey_run_steps, leaving the automation-vs-journey distinction to inference.

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 implies the usage context (inspecting a run's progression) and routes the agent onward with "Send steps carry a message_id to follow with get_message," which is a useful alternative-tool pointer. However, it never states when to choose this over list_automation_runs or list_journey_run_steps, so selection guidance is only implied.

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