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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context beyond that: what the payload contains versus what it deliberately omits (findings, screenshots, session data), which prevents mis-expectation about return content.

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 the returned-field list come first, and the exclusion/routing clause follows in the same breath.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema present, the definition covers everything the agent needs: purpose, id source, field inventory, and explicit boundaries against sibling result tools. Nothing material is missing.

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% and there is a single required param, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaning beyond the schema by giving the parameter's provenance ('from list_tests'), which tells the agent how to obtain a valid value; the 24-hex format is already self-documenting via the schema pattern.

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 and resource ('Read metadata for one accessible test') and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, goal, status, type, source, creation date, version, result flag, Uxia link). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_test_definition, get_test_progress and show_evidence without opening any schema.

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 names the upstream source for the required id ('testId from list_tests') and states the exclusion boundary plus the alternative: 'Does not return findings, screenshots or session data; use result tools for those.' An agent knows both when to call it and when to route elsewhere.

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