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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe, non-mutating profile, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds only the REST endpoint (GET /builds), confirming the read semantics, but discloses nothing about pagination, default result limits, or ordering — real gaps for a list endpoint.

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 short sentences with the purpose and filters front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Codemagic REST: GET /builds' clause is mildly useful for doc cross-referencing but does not add much to an agent's decision.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know result size, pagination, and default ordering before calling it. None of that is present, though annotations carry the safety profile.

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 100%, so all three filter parameters are already documented in the schema. The description names the same filters without adding format, matching semantics, or combination behavior, so it earns the baseline, not more.

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 builds') and enumerates the three optional filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from codemagic_get_build by the plural resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling or with codemagic_list_applications.

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 sentence describes which filters are available but gives no guidance on when to call this instead of codemagic_get_build, nor any prerequisites, ordering, or result-size caveats. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'List'.

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