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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: newest-first ordering, a fixed 20-per-page size, and the fact that results span all trigger origins. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a list tool with annotations covering safety this is solid added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with verb and resource, then appends ordering, pagination, and scope details without a wasted clause. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it discharges this economically by pointing to the shape of get-automation-run-tool. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, though a note on paging termination would make it complete.

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 the schema documents both automation_id and page fully, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces pagination behavior (20 per page) but the `trigger` enumeration refers to a property of returned runs, not an input, and it does not clarify how paging terminates.

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 (runs of one of the user's automations), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get-automation-run-tool by noting the returned items share that tool's shape. An agent can distinguish this list tool from the single-run getter and from list-automations-tool without opening any schema.

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 the content: this is the tool to enumerate many runs. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs get-automation-run-tool statement, no note about paging through to completion, and no guidance on the trigger dimension being descriptive rather than a filter. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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