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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the default 30-day window, the 90-day maximum, newest-first ordering, and the backend service (GithubActionsService/ListGithubActionsJobs). It does not mention permissions or pagination limits, but the added windowing/sort behavior is substantive.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the returned-field list and the window constraint. The field enumeration is long but functional since no output schema exists to carry it. No wasted filler or restated title.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, the sort order, and the default/max time window. Pagination and the filter semantics are left entirely to the fully documented schema, which is reasonable. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though alternatives are never mentioned.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already carries the per-parameter burden. The description contributes only the default/max time window (relevant to start_at/end_at) and the set of returned fields; it adds nothing about the query, statuses, conclusions, repositories, or runner_labels filters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('List GitHub Actions jobs that ran on Depot-managed runners') and scopes it with 'Depot-managed runners', which separates it from the broader CI siblings like depot_ci_list_runs. It also enumerates the fields returned (status, conclusion, runner label, CPU/memory, duration, billable time, URL), so an agent knows exactly what it gets without opening a 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?

It supplies a real usage constraint — defaults to the last 30 days, max window 90 days — which tells the agent how to set start_at/end_at if omitted. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, so an agent cannot infer why it should call this instead of depot_gha_search_logs or depot_ci_get_job.

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