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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are 'compact summaries, not result payloads' (output shape) and only 'accessible' runs are returned (permission scoping).

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and filters front-loaded and the output caveat placed last. Nothing can be cut without losing information.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves pagination (limit/offset are required and undocumented), ordering, and the exact meaning of 'accessible' unstated.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It names status, workflow, project, date and name, which maps to status, workflow_id, project_id, created_after/before and q, but it omits the required limit/offset pagination params and gives no format or matching-syntax detail.

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 ('Find') plus resource ('workflow and batch runs') and enumerates the filter dimensions. It also implicitly separates itself from result-fetching siblings with 'not result payloads', though it does not name list_jobs or get_workflow_run directly.

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 filter list implies when the tool is useful (searching runs by status/workflow/project/date/name), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_jobs, get_workflow_run, or get_workflow_results, and no stated prerequisites.

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