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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value beyond them: the limit is global when blockId is omitted, returned block/run IDs should be retained for evidence, and legacy tests are supported. These are non-obvious behavioral notes, though it stops short of describing result shape (covered by output schema).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the omission/ID guidance is restated twice ('Omit blockId...' and again 'omission uses the documented defaults'), which adds redundancy without new information.

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 present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the main selection logic, global-limit behavior, and legacy-test support. Remaining gaps are the undocumented filter parameters, which is a minor shortfall.

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 only 13% across 8 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies blockId omission semantics and the global scope of limit, but leaves runId, sortBy, category, severity, and testerName unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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+resource ('List findings ranked by severity') and distinguishes scope from the singular get_insight sibling. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the list/rank framing is unambiguous.

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 clear conditional usage: omit blockId for cross-block top insights, supply it for a single task, and points to list_test_blocks for valid IDs. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tool, but the when-to-use context is solid.

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