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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: that runs are system-written (i.e., not user-creatable) and an enumeration of the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then filters, then the read-only caveat. No filler sentences and nothing is buried.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the returned fields and two of three filters, which is nearly enough to invoke correctly. The gaps are the unexplained request_id and the absence of any pagination or filter-combination guidance.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It documents two of the three filters (application-id, rule-id) but leaves request_id entirely unexplained, and adds no format or combination semantics for the ones it does name.

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 and resource ("List workflow automation runs") and enumerates the fields surfaced by the list, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling yardstick_automation_runs_retry, but the read-only framing implicitly separates it from the mutating sibling.

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?

It gives partial usage guidance by naming the two filter dimensions (application-id, rule-id), which tells the agent how to scope the call. However it offers no when-to-use/when-not framing and never points to the retry sibling for acting on a failed run, leaving alternatives to inference.

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