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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, but the description adds real context beyond the annotation: it clarifies the operation is a query over workflow runs, not a trigger for one, and hints at the returned content (status/output). It does not cover pagination behavior or rate limits, but the 'does NOT start a run' clarification is genuine added value.

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 that front-load the resource and its read-only scope, followed by the exact API path. No filler sentences, and the most decision-relevant fact (does not start a run) appears before the endpoint trivia.

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 six optional filters fully described in the schema and an annotation covering safety, the description supplies what remains missing: what the tool returns (status/output) and that it is non-mutating. No output schema exists, so the brief return hint is a reasonable stand-in, though it could say more about result shape.

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/pagination parameters (page, sort, status enum, applicant_id, created_at bounds) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 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), and explicitly contrasts with the write operation 'does NOT start a run', which is the closest confusion risk. It also names the underlying API endpoint, so the agent can map it precisely to the singular onfido_get_workflow_run sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit negative condition ('does NOT start a run') that usefully rules out the start-run tool, and the read-only framing signals the correct context. It stops short of naming onfido_get_workflow_run as the single-run alternative, so routing between list and get is left to the reader.

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