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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of returned fields (status, progress, credit usage), which is mild added value; with an output schema present, return-value detail is not required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope followed by the one parameter rule that matters. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential remaining context: what is read and the runId default. It is only slightly short on testId semantics and failure behavior.

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 schema alone only shows a 24-hex pattern for testId and a runId ref. The description compensates for runId by explaining that omitting it selects the latest run, but it says nothing about testId's meaning or what happens with an unknown ID.

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) and resource set (run status, progress, credit usage), which is distinct from siblings like get_test or get_test_definition. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 clause 'Omit runId for the latest run' gives real operational guidance for one parameter, implicitly telling the agent when to supply it and when not to. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_test, show_evidence, or get_insight for run information.

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