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 only that results include IDs and status, which is modest value beyond the structured fields; it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result volume.

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?

A single short sentence with the key information front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is padding.

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, but for a list tool with a limit cap of 50, a query string, and a status enum, the definition leaves all invocation behavior unspecified. Given the dense sibling list, more context is needed to select this tool correctly.

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% for three parameters (limit, query, status), and the description compensates for none of them: it never mentions pagination limits, free-text query matching, or filtering by the status enum. 'with IDs and status' merely names a returned field and implies status is meaningful without explaining the filter.

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 ('List accessibility tests') and adds the returned fields (IDs and status). It does not distinguish this from the many sibling list_* tools (list_tests, list_transcripts, list_insights), so an agent must infer 'accessibility' is the differentiator.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_tests or the other list_* siblings, no prerequisite conditions, and no exclusions. The description is a bare capability statement.

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