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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioural facts not in the annotations: a hard page size of 50, zero-based pagination, and the existence of a hasMore flag the caller must inspect to continue.

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 compact sentence with the pagination size, page origin, filters and hasMore cue all front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is arguably over-compressed and switches language relative to the English tool name and siblings, which costs a little clarity.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination and filtering but leaves gaps an agent would want: result ordering, what fields a run contains beyond hasMore, and what the status filter changes. Adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and it partially delivers: 'page commence à 0' plus the 50-per-page size explains the page param, and 'filtre workflow ou agent' maps to flowId and agentId. The status enum parameter is never mentioned, and no parameter's format or interaction with the others is clarified.

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?

Together with the name, the phrase 'Historique réel, 50 exécutions par page' identifies the resource (run execution history) and its paginated shape. It is clear enough to act on, but the verb is only implied and nothing distinguishes it from near-neighbours such as get_run or workflow_history.

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 use case (browse executions, optionally narrowed by 'filtre workflow ou agent') but never states when to prefer it over get_run for a single run or workflow_history for a specific workflow. The only explicit operational cue is to read hasMore, which is pagination guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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