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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the returned contents, including source tracking (synthetic vs production reproduction) and baseline scores, which an agent would not otherwise know. It omits any permission/rate-limit detail, but the annotation baseline is already satisfied.

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 with the resource and payload front-loaded, and the interpretive purpose second. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. It is nearly complete; only the inability to reference alternatives for this specific use-case leaves a minor gap.

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% and both parameters (agentId, customerId) are already documented in the schema, including the superadmin-only note. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource ('the regression test suite for an agent') and enumerates the payload (scenario details, source tracking, baseline scores). It is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like add_regression_scenarios and regression_test, 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?

It offers a purpose-level context ('Use this to understand what scenarios guard against regressions during optimization'), which implies the usage. However, it gives no when-not guidance and does not name alternatives (e.g., add_regression_scenarios for writing, regression_test for executing), so the routing guidance is only implied.

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