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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope detail ('every workspace you can access'), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or default limit behavior beyond the schema's parameter constraints.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the optional filter is mentioned in a separate second sentence. Every clause adds value.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers the core use case and the status filter. Missing details include what the response looks like (field structure) and the behavior of the limit parameter, which could affect how an agent calls the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the status parameter by naming it as an optional filter and enumerating its values, which matches the schema enum. However, the limit parameter is completely unaddressed, leaving its purpose and behavior unspecified.

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 ('Lists') and a precise resource ('usability tests') with a clear scope ('across every workspace you can access'). It also implies a distinct role from siblings by calling itself 'the usual starting point for finding a UT', which differentiates it from get_ut and other operations.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the default entry point for locating a UT ('the usual starting point'), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like get_ut, but the contrast is implied and sufficient for a listing operation.

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