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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description aligns with it by describing a read operation. The description adds some context about what the response history includes (branch, sha, status, timestamps) and the HTTP endpoint, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no builds exist. This is acceptable but not unusually transparent.

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 concise sentence immediately states the purpose and expected fields, followed by the endpoint for orientation. There is no fluff or repetition of the parameter schema, making every word useful.

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 list endpoint with a rich schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the agent what is being listed and a bit about the contents. It does not mention pagination explicitly, but the schema covers page, cursor, and per_page, so the missing piece is only a minor clarification rather than a critical one.

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 five parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond restating the endpoint placeholders, which provides no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly identifies the operation: listing a build service's build runs/history, including specific data fields (branch, sha, status, timestamps). The verb 'list' plus the resource 'build service's build runs' is specific and distinct from sibling tools that list services, jobs, or addons.

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 does not explicitly state when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as northflank_list_services or northflank_get_service. The endpoint path implies it targets build/combined services, but there is no direct guidance on when this is the right tool or what conditions make it preferable.

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