list_automation_instance_endpoint_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds real context beyond that: the pagination envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the default/max limits, and that `contains` is server-side filtering on item fields rather than a client-side match. It stops short of describing item shape or auth/scope requirements.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loaded on what the tool returns, then pagination, then the one non-obvious parameter. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return envelope and paging contract, which is the main thing an agent needs here. Remaining gaps are minor: item field composition and how org_id/instance_id should be sourced.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It explains `contains` semantics and the limit defaults/max well, but leaves org_id, instance_id, and offset's relationship to `total` unexplained.

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 precisely: per-endpoint results of one automation run, scoped by instance_id. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_automation_instances and list_automation_schedules by narrowing to endpoint-level results, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list'.

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 implied rather than stated - you call it to inspect the endpoint-level output of a run. It does give operational guidance ('check `total` before paging through everything'), but names no alternative tool and no when-not-to-use condition versus the other list_* siblings.

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