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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds contextual value beyond them by explaining that runs are system-written by the executor and that skipped send_email rows are included for full observability. This is useful behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds filtering, read-only status, and a behavioral nuance. Every clause contributes meaning, though a touch more structure could make the parameter list clearer.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description conveys what data is returned (which candidate, success/failure) and covers the inclusion of skipped rows DNA. However, it doesn't describe the response structure and leaves the request_id filter unexplained, making the definition adequate but not fully complete for an agent.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names application-id and rule-id as filters, but completely ignores the request_id parameter and provides no type, format, or meaning for any of them. This leaves an important gap for an agent needing to construct a correct call.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('stage automation runs') while adding context about what the runs contain and how they are produced. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yardstick_automation_rules_list, which deal with rules rather than run history.

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 identifies two filters (application-id, rule-id) and notes the read-only nature, implying when this tool is appropriate for inspecting run history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, and the request_id filter is omitted from the guidance.

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