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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds value by enumerating the event kinds it returns, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits for a list operation.

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 tight sentence front-loads the purpose and event scope, with a compact API endpoint reference that aids doc cross-referencing. No filler.

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 enumerates the returned event types, which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of covering ordering or pagination, which for a list endpoint is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter (run_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description's phrase 'of one run' reinforces the single-run scoping but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 (a single run's lifecycle events), and enumerates the event types returned (queued, dequeued, started, retried, completed). It clearly separates this from trigger_get_run by scoping to events rather than run details, though it doesn't name the 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: an agent can infer you'd call this to inspect a run's history, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., trigger_get_run_trace for spans, trigger_get_run for current state).

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