list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior ('newest first'), which is genuinely useful context not in the annotations. However, it discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, or what happens when no runs exist.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and includes the ordering constraint without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits pagination behavior, default limit implications, and any conditions that select it over similar list tools.

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 50%. The 'project' parameter has a schema description ('Project name from list_projects; may be omitted when only one project exists'), and the description adds no further detail. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource ('a project's searches (runs)') with an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings like start_search and get_run_status, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 implies usage (list searches for a project) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no differentiation from siblings like get_run_status or list_articles, and no exclusions. Usage is inferred from the verb+resource, which is the minimum viable level.

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