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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: default sort order (most recent first) and the required scope 'billing.read', which the agent would otherwise not know. It stops short of saying how pagination terminates or how large result sets behave.

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 what the tool returns, then lists fields and the scope. Dense but every clause carries information; the status enumeration is the longest part and is defensible given the enum lacks descriptions.

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, so the description's field inventory (repository, workflow/job, label, status, times, billed minutes and amount, run link) carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly. Combined with the order and scope statements, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains the meaning of status values (queued with waiting_reason credit/budget/account, stopped_for_credit, refused) which the bare enum does not, but it never clarifies that `status` and `repository` act as filters — they read as returned fields rather than query parameters, and limit/cursor are untouched.

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?

The description states the resource concretely — jobs that ran or waited on FFxF runners — and enumerates what each record contains (repository, workflow/job, label, status, times, billed minutes, run link). It is not a tautology of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_runners, so an agent may hesitate between the two.

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: 'most recent first' plus 'Scope: billing.read' suggests an audit/billing review use case and names the required permission. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_runners, and no exclusions or pagination guidance beyond the schema's cursor field.

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