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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are scoped to what the authenticated user can see, ordered newest first, and include status, result, and error per run.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose with scope and ordering is front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the fields returned (status, result, error) and the ordering, which is enough for an agent to use it. It does not mention pagination behavior despite a page parameter, a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (slot UUID, page) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about either parameter, though none is really needed.

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 runs on one phone), enumerates what a run covers (device commands, macros, GUI-agent tasks), and specifies scope, ordering, and returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from get-phone-run-tool and list-automation-runs-tool.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get-phone-run-tool to poll a single run, implying this tool is for browsing multiples. No exclusions are stated (e.g., versus list-automation-runs-tool), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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