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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact 90%/30%/70% thresholds, the 30-day default window, and what the result contains (current vs suggested size, per-minute price). It does not mention pagination limits or result caps, which the schema only partially covers via page_size/page_token, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the decision thresholds, followed by the default window and a trailing internal API reference. Only the 'Depot: GithubActionsService/ListGithubActionsRecommendations' clause is arguably non-essential, but it is a single compact sentence overall. Efficient without being clipped.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (current vs suggested size, per-minute price) and explains the scoring rules, and all nine filters are covered by the schema. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or how results are ordered, so it is nearly but not fully 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 all nine parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only one semantic detail beyond the schema, the default 30-day window for start_at/end_at; it says nothing about how the filters combine (e.g. empty repositories meaning all, which the schema already covers).

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's runner-size recommendations') and goes further by defining the metrics that drive them (CPU/memory) and the SIZE_UP/SIZE_DOWN decision rules. That is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as depot_gha_get_analytics or depot_gha_list_jobs, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives the default window ('Defaults to the last 30 days') and the thresholds that produce each recommendation type, which implies when the tool is useful. It does not say when to prefer this over depot_gha_get_analytics, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied, not spelled out, so a 3 is appropriate.

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