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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered, and the description adds real behavioral constraints: an implicit 30-day default window and a hard 90-day maximum, plus newest-first ordering. It does not discuss pagination limits, result caps, or authentication requirements, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading verb, resource, and scope before the returned fields and the date-window constraints. The trailing service identifier is a compact provenance note rather than padding; nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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?

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully substitutes for the missing return schema by enumerating the reported fields, and it covers the window defaults that the schema omits. It leaves pagination behavior and empty-result semantics unstated, though the page_token/page_size params partially cover paging.

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 3 is the baseline, but the description adds information the schema lacks: the default date range and the 90-day maximum window, which governs how start_at/end_at must be set. It does not add meaning for query, statuses, conclusions, repositories, runner_labels, or the paging parameters.

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?

Names a precise verb and resource ('List GitHub Actions jobs') and adds a hard scope qualifier ('that ran on Depot-managed runners'), which separates it from run-level siblings like depot_ci_list_runs. It even enumerates the returned fields (status, conclusion, runner label, CPU/memory, duration, billable time, URL), so an agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 description supplies operating context ('defaults to the last 30 days', 'max window 90 days', 'newest first'), which tells the agent how to call it, but never states when to prefer it over depot_ci_list_runs, depot_gha_get_analytics, or depot_gha_search_logs. Usage is implied by the resource scope rather than explicitly routed.

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