List heartbeat runs for a company

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), which are useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. No extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (list runs), and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the lack of parameter documentation and usage guidance leaves gaps. A minimally viable description.

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 parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions companyId in the endpoint string but does not explain its meaning, format, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 title and description explicitly state 'List heartbeat runs for a company,' which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (heartbeat runs scoped to a company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_get_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id (single run) and pc_post_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id_cancel (cancel action).

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 the tool is for listing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. other heartbeat-run tools (e.g., get a specific run). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The 'Authorization class' hint is peripheral.

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