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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond annotations: omitted IDs fall back to documented defaults, and legacy tests are supported.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter-sourcing hint following. No filler, though "documented defaults" is a vague pointer that costs a little precision.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need no explanation. With only three parameters and one required, the description supplies enough to call it, though the referenced defaults remain unexplained.

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 coverage is only 33% (blockId documents itself), so the description must compensate. It partially does by tying block/run targeting to list_test_blocks, but testId (the required parameter) and runId receive no added meaning.

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 (read) plus resource (optimization score) and adds the scope of contributing factors. The resource is unique among siblings, but the description does not explicitly distinguish it from adjacent scoring tools like get_satisfaction_score or get_strengths.

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?

"Use IDs from list_test_blocks to target a block/run" gives a concrete prerequisite for sourcing parameters, and the omission note hints at a default path. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus other scoring/reporting siblings, so usage is only implied.

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