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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the implicit server-side status default, and the repo dependency for PR filtering. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers page_token.

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 tight sentences: purpose and ordering first, then the filter options with the failure-search hint. No filler, and the most actionable detail (finding failures) is easy to spot.

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 an optional-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the filtering surface and defaults an agent needs to build a useful query. Pagination is only implied through the schema, and result shape is undocumented, keeping it just under complete.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters including the default status behavior and the repo requirement for pr. The description largely restates those facts rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Depot CI runs") and adds the ordering guarantee ("newest first"). It clearly reads as a bulk/list retrieval, distinguishing it from single-run siblings like depot_ci_get_run_status, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete operative guidance: the default filter is running + queued, and it tells the agent how to find failures ("pass ["failed"] to find failures") plus the constraint that PR lookups require repo. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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