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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description largely restates this ('read-only'), though it adds the useful clarification that it does not start a run and names the underlying endpoint. No details on pagination limits, rate limits, or result size are provided.

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 short clauses with zero waste and the key constraint ('does NOT start a run') front-loaded. Terse but functional; it does not pad with redundant restatement of the 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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke correctly (read-only, does not start runs, returns status/output). Return-shape detail is rightfully left to the API since no output schema exists.

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 filter/sort/pagination parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (Onfido Studio workflow runs) with scope notes ('status/output, read-only'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling onfido_get_workflow_run and from run-starting operations, but never names an alternative 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?

The parenthetical '(does NOT start a run)' clarifies a boundary of use, and read-only signals a safe query context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing rule distinguishing it from onfido_get_workflow_run for a single run or onfido_list_applicants.

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