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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, and the description adds the return shape (a table of runs with id, target, created, name count, and status). It does not disclose potential limits such as pagination, ordering, or behavior when no runs exist, but for a simple read-only list this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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. The core action and scope are front-loaded, the parenthetical clarifies an important characteristic, and the return fields are listed compactly.

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?

With a single parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context by listing the returned fields. Minor ambiguity remains around 'name count' and possible empty-result behavior, but this is a low-complexity tool and the description is reasonably 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?

The single parameter researchId is fully described in the schema with type, format, pattern, and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all brand-name runs generated for a specific research'), and explicitly notes that a research can hold several runs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_brand_names or create_brand_names by emphasizing the plural, list-oriented nature of the operation.

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 makes it clear that the tool lists runs for a single research, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_brand_names or list_researches, nor does it state when not to use it.

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