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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (defaults on omission, legacy-test support), but nothing about auth requirements or pagination. Adequate add-on over the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by targeting guidance. No filler sentences or restated title.

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 so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with four parameters at 25% schema coverage, the description leaves the testId parameter and required-parameter coupling under-specified for a tool that demands both testId and name.

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 25% (only blockId is documented), so the description must compensate. It explains the name parameter ('tester name from the results') and the block/run targeting role of blockId/runId, but leaves testId's role and the runId format undescribed.

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 a participant profile using a tester name.' An agent can distinguish it from get_test, get_test_definition, and get_test_report, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Gives implied guidance: 'Use IDs from list_test_blocks to target a block/run; omission uses the documented defaults' and notes legacy tests are supported. However it never says when to prefer this tool over get_human_session, get_transcript, or other read siblings, so the routing is only partially resolved.

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