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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping detail that only the authenticated researcher's runs are listed, which is useful context. However, it provides no additional behavioral traits such as return shape, ordering, or pagination, so it does not go beyond the annotations meaningfully.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place by identifying the action, resource, and ownership scope.

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 zero-parameter list operation with readOnlyHint=true, the description is nearly sufficient. It communicates the action and scope clearly. It is missing only minor things like return format or ordering, but the absence of parameters makes those gaps less critical.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no ambiguity and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description is consistent with that.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus a clear resource ('research runs') and adds an ownership qualifier ('owned by the authenticated researcher'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_research_run and read_research_dashboard, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback tools. The ownership qualifier gives some context but no explicit routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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