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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds the context of 'across recent runs' and 'recurring', which is consistent. No behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide are disclosed, but that is acceptable since annotations cover the key aspects.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it concise and effective.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are already documented), the description covers the essential function: finding recurring recommendations across recent runs for a known test. It does not explain the minimum frequency threshold, but that is in the parameter schema. The complexity is moderate, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter (runs, test_id, min_frequency) already has a description. The tool's description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Based on the guidelines, baseline for high schema coverage is 3, so this score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find recurring Content Intelligence recommendations across recent runs for a known test.' It specifies the verb 'find', the resource 'recurring Content Intelligence recommendations', and the scope 'across recent runs for a known test'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_sleepwalker_test_results which return all results, not just consistent ones.

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 usage when looking for recurring recommendations across runs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios. Given the sibling list includes many similar get/list tools, more guidance would be helpful, but the purpose itself provides some implicit context.

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