run_steps

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses built-in automatic waiting and error retry, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about default failure behavior (stop_on_error), what is returned, or partial-failure semantics beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does and then when to use it. The '10 times faster' claim is mildly promotional but still carries selection value.

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 complex orchestration tool with a nested steps array, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core value but omits return-format and error-handling behavior that an agent would want before relying on it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including nested step fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. step ordering, retry interaction), so baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('execute multiple operation steps in one call') and names itself as multi-step execution. It distinguishes itself from step-by-step calls, though it does not address the sibling 'batch' tool, which could plausibly overlap.

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?

Names concrete use cases (login, form filling) and the alternative (step-by-step calls) with a comparative claim ('10 times faster'). Missing an explicit exclusion, e.g. when a single 'batch'/'retry' sibling should be preferred.

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