list_scheduler_job_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context — result ordering (start time desc), the underlying scope (recent runs), and an explicit boundary on what this view does not contain — but it says nothing about privileges needed to read scheduler views, truncation behavior, or pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then return fields, then ordering, then the boundary caveat. Every sentence contributes and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned columns and states the sort order, so an agent can interpret results. It could still note the default row cap or privilege requirements, but for a simple read-only list tool it is nearly complete.

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 limit, schema, and jobName are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or semantics beyond that, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List ... DBMS_SCHEDULER job run details') plus an enumeration of the returned columns, which is more than a restatement of the name. It clarifies the resource is run details rather than job definitions, but never explicitly names the sibling list_scheduler_jobs as the tool for job definitions, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied (inspect recent execution history) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use clause. The parenthetical pointing operation/status to ALL_SCHEDULER_JOB_LOG is useful negative guidance but it steers toward a different Oracle view, not toward a sibling MCP tool.

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