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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a non-mutating read, so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds the concrete endpoint and the shape of the records returned. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior (page vs cursor), default page size, or the fact that it only applies to build/combined services even though serviceId's schema mentions both service types. That is a modest gap for a list tool.

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?

One tightly worded sentence plus the HTTP endpoint. The purpose and returned fields are front-loaded with zero filler, and nothing is repeated that the schema already states.

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?

There is no output schema, and the parenthetical field list partly compensates for that by sketching the return shape. But for a paginated list tool with six parameters, the description omits pagination mechanics and any constraint on which service types are valid, leaving real operational gaps.

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 six parameters including page, cursor, per_page, teamId, projectId, and serviceId are already documented in structured form. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema (e.g., when to prefer cursor over page), which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource ("List a build service's build runs / history") and enumerates the visible fields (branch, sha, status, timestamps), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It implicitly distinguishes itself from northflank_trigger_service_build (which creates a build), 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?

Usage is only implied: the description establishes the tool as a historical view of builds, so an agent can infer when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the service must be a build/combined service), and no routing toward alternatives such as northflank_get_service or northflank_trigger_service_build.

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