list_notebook_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the API rejects a jobState filter so filtering happens client-side, results are newest-first, and lookback_days is the cost lever (100 runs per API call).

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?

Front-loads purpose and default behavior, then the rationale, then compact arg notes. Despite the length, every sentence carries actionable information that is absent from the structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers ordering, filtering, and cost but not the shape of a returned run record. Otherwise complete for a read-only list tool with five undocumented parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it enumerates the status values, explains environment defaulting, says schedule accepts a name or id, and clarifies lookback_days and limit semantics.

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 (list) and resource (scheduled-notebook runs) with an explicit default scope (failed). It draws the boundary against the sibling list_notebook_schedules by contrasting 'across every scheduled notebook at once, rather than per schedule.'

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?

Gives an explicit triggering question ('what has been failing?') and the condition that favors this tool over the per-schedule alternative. The trade-off against sibling tools is stated rather than inferred.

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