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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what a run contains and that `next` provides older runs, though it does not mention rate limits or auth constraints.

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 short sentences with no waste, front-loading what the tool returns and following with usage guidance and pagination. Every sentence contributes.

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 tool with optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose, usage cue, and pagination behavior. Missing parameter details are adequately covered by the 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 coverage is 67%, with cursor and workspaceId documented but limit undocumented. The description mentions pagination via `next` but does not explain the `cursor`, `limit`, or `workspaceId` parameters directly, so it adds only marginal parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 read operation over a specific resource (recent runs of every agent) and enumerates the returned content: last-worked time, merchant note, and proposed/done counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like readStatus or readWaitingItems.

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?

Explicitly says to read it before saying what happened or what an agent decided, giving clear usage context. It does not name when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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