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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: automatic fires are stored as diagnoses, outputs are sampled with an output_truncated flag, and large trace values are shortened. This data-fidelity caveat is exactly what an agent needs to avoid mistaking a truncated run for a small one.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then layered with reference semantics and caveats. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the diagnosis/sampling sentence is packed enough to require a second read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description still covers the one thing the schema cannot convey: that returned entries are references and that outputs may be sampled. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and all three parameters (schedule_id, page_size, page_token) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or paging nuance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource ("List a schedule's fire history") plus the ordering ("newest-first"), which is more than the title restates. It also frames the return as thin references rather than full runs, so an agent knows this is not the same as list_runs/get_workflow_run.

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 routes the agent: use get_workflow_run / get_workflow_run_traces to resolve status/output/traces, and use run_schedule_now to capture a firing in full. Both the alternative and the condition selecting it are named.

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