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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail such as returning summaries and sorting most-recent-first, which is not fully covered by annotations. No side effects are mentioned, but the read-only nature is already asserted.

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, concise and directly addresses purpose, filtering, return content, and alternative tools. No extraneous information or verbose explanations.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (summaries) and points to get_workflow_run and get_workflow_run_traces for more detailed data. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all parameters with clear descriptions, including the status values and page_token usage. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (workflow's past runs), and the scope (by workflow id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_workflow_run and get_workflow_run_traces by explicitly mentioning what those tools are for, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains the optional status filter and the ordering (most-recent-first), and explicitly tells the user when to use other tools for output or per-step detail. This provides clear guidance on when to select this tool over its siblings.

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