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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that (no pagination, ordering, or result-limit context), which is acceptable but thin for a list endpoint.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose is stated before the filtering detail. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than deliberately concise.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, this covers the minimum. It leaves gaps around what is returned, whether results are paginated or scoped to the caller, and how it relates to the other protocol-run tools.

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 the status enum is fully enumerated in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description merely restates the two filter names without adding format, defaulting, or combination semantics beyond what is already structured.

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+resource ('List protocol runs'), so an agent immediately knows this is a read/list operation on protocol runs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_protocols, get_protocol_run, or the create/start/cancel run 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?

The second sentence tells how to narrow results but not when to choose this tool over get_protocol_run (single run) or list_protocols (protocol definitions). No when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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