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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source behavior (`process_runs` vs. the append-only event log), the fact that `source=events` avoids touching `process_runs`, and the included row fields. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the word 'List' plus the source distinction gives a solid behavioral picture.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the most important behavioral distinction (`source=events`) in a compact, readable way. Every sentence 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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, row fields, and the key source-behavior distinction. Filtering and pagination are left to the schema, which documents them adequately. It is missing only an explicit pointer to sibling tools for alternative use cases, but that is a minor gap given the schema and output schema.

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 60%, so the schema already documents `source`, `status`, and `process` reasonably well. The description adds useful meaning to `source` by explaining the event-log folding behavior and the 'without touching `process_runs`' aspect, but it does not add anything to `limit`, `offset`, `status`, or `process` beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List Process runs in this org.' It also names the row fields (`stream_id` and `work_id`) and distinguishes the `events` source path, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like `process_run_events` or `agent_run_list`, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides a concrete usage condition for `source=events` ('fold every run from the append-only event log... without touching `process_runs`'), which helps an agent decide between the default and event-derived paths. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as `process_run_get` or `process_run_events`, and it states no exclusions or alternative routing.

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