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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the purpose-oriented filtering strategy, and the follow-up call for step detail. It does not mention pagination/cursor behavior, but that is documented in the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, ordered as scope, usage, and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place and the most important constraint (this lists automation runs, not journey runs) is stated up front.

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, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers scope, filtering strategy, ordering, follow-up tool, and sibling disambiguation. No output schema is present, so no return-value explanation is required.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description names the filterable dimensions (template, status, created_at window) at a high level, matching template_id, status, and start_date/end_date, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (list automation runs) plus the sort order (newest first), and explicitly excludes journey runs by pointing to list_journey_runs. An agent can distinguish it from its closest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both the when (filter by template/status/created_at window to find a stalled or errored run) and the alternatives (journey runs go to list_journey_runs), plus the natural next call (list_automation_run_steps). Nothing is left to inference.

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