list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail 'Newest first' (ordering) and notes that filters can be combined to narrow results. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is two short paragraphs, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose and examples; the second provides a targeted alternative. No fluff or redundancy, and the key differentiator is front-loaded.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers ordering, filtering, and an alternative. It doesn't explain pagination, but the schema includes offset and next_offset, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable. It could mention AND semantics of combining filters, but 'narrow down' implies that. Overall, complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 every parameter is documented with its own description. The tool description does not add new parameter-specific meaning, only illustrates usage with examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('runs') and provides concrete examples (player's recent submissions, game's verified/rejected runs). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_unverified_runs' by naming the simpler alternative for a single game's moderation queue, so an agent can tell them apart without reading schemas.

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 explicitly names an alternative tool ('list_unverified_runs') and the condition under which it is simpler (for one game's moderation queue). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and the examples illustrate typical use cases for this tool.

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