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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral details about truncation and sampling of outputs/traces. It clearly explains what information is retained versus shortened, which helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides concise, relevant details about references and truncation. Each sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the key contextual information: what the list contains, how to resolve full details, and the sampling behavior. Pagination is already described in the parameter schema, so nothing essential 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including schedule_id and pagination fields. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 tool lists a schedule's fire history, newest-first, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explaining that each item is a thin reference to a workflow run and directing users to get_workflow_run/get_workflow_run_traces for details.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use related tools: resolve run status/output/traces with get_workflow_run/get_workflow_run_traces. It also tells users that run_schedule_now should be used to capture a full firing, which clarifies the trade-off between listing historical diagnoses and triggering a fresh run.

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