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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it emphasizes 'accessible' tests, clarifies that findings, screenshots, and session data are excluded, and routes those needs to other tools. It does not discuss behavior for inaccessible or missing testIds, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and field list, followed by precise exclusions and alternatives. Every clause earns its place and there is no repetition of annotation data.

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 that an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return formatting. It supplies the necessary scope, field summary, parameter provenance, exclusions, and sibling routing, which is complete for an agent to call this tool correctly among many similarly named get_* tools.

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 add parameter meaning. It does by specifying that testId comes from list_tests, which is useful beyond the schema's regex pattern. It does not explain the ID format itself, but the pattern in the schema already covers that.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Read metadata for one accessible test.' It then enumerates exactly which metadata fields are returned, making the tool's scope concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_test_report or get_test_summary.

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 explicitly states the required source of the identifier ('using testId from list_tests') and draws clear boundaries by naming what the tool does not return and pointing to alternatives ('use result tools for those, or get_interview_study when type is ai-moderated'). This gives an agent explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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