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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset exist in the schema but the description never mentions paging, defaults, or maximum result count), sorting order, or required permissions. It only restates the filterable dimensions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and puts the resource before the filter list. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed.

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 9-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains pagination (limit/offset), result ordering, or what a returned run looks like, all of which an agent needs to page through results correctly.

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 compensate, and it does map most parameter names to human-readable concepts (TestChimp id, kind, branch, profile, dataset, LLM mode, environment). However it omits limit/offset entirely and never explains the JOURNEY/COMPOSITE enum values or expected string formats, leaving two parameters and the only enum undocumented.

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 performance runs') plus the filtering capability, which is enough to distinguish it from the singular sibling get-perf-run. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the other listing siblings such as list-perf-baselines or list-related-perf-tests.

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 word 'optionally filtered' implies the tool supports both a full listing and a filtered query, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get-perf-run (single run), list-perf-baselines, or compare-perf-to-baseline. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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