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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add 'outstanding' (i.e. only unresolved tokens, not the full history) and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth scope, rate limits, or ordering.

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 compact clauses with the resource and its meaning front-loaded; no filler sentences and the endpoint reference is tacked on at the end where it does no harm.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented pagination params, the description is minimally sufficient, but with no output schema it never hints at what a waitpoint token record contains (id, url, status), leaving the return side entirely to inference.

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%, and both parameters (after cursor, pageSize 1-100) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format 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 and resource ('List ... waitpoint tokens') and disambiguates the domain concept by explaining these are 'runs paused waiting for an external signal'. No sibling lists waitpoints, so there is no real ambiguity, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with trigger_list_runs or other list tools.

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 implied by 'outstanding waitpoint tokens' — the agent can infer this is for inspecting pending external-signal pauses — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance.

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