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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: each test runs in a fresh conversation, all runtime gates are active, runs are BILLED as test runs, the SAVED agent is used, and a 10-test cap applies. Annotations only cover the read-only/destructive/open-world profile, so this cost, isolation and limit disclosure is genuinely additive.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the execution semantics are front-loaded and the constraints (billing, cap, saved agent) follow immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the return shape (pass/fail per test, failure reasons, reply excerpt) and the run's limits and billing model. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with agent_id's source and test_ids' omit-for-whole-suite behavior already documented in the schema. The description only tangentially touches parameters via the 10-test cap, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run the agent's saved tests') and disambiguates from siblings by scoping it to the SAVED agent with real runtime gates. An agent can distinguish it from save_test, list_tests, validate_agent and probe_agent from the text alone.

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?

Gives clear context for use: real execution in fresh conversations, saved agent required, max 10 tests per run. However it never names an alternative (e.g., probe_agent or validate_agent) or states when NOT to use it, so the routing decision is implied rather than explicit.

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