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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results are ordered and include statuses/IDs; it says nothing about pagination, ordering guarantees, or what happens when runId is omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant restatement of the name, which is right for a simple list tool. The closing phrase 'for result queries' is slightly vague but costs nothing structurally.

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 spelled out, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is parameter guidance for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, which leaves an agent guessing about how to scope the query 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% and neither testId nor runId is explained in the description. The mention of 'block/run IDs' loosely hints at the optional runId, but the required 24-hex testId and the fact that runId is a $ref of testId are never clarified, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List ordered blocks') plus the payload an agent gets back (statuses and exact block/run IDs). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with nearby list siblings such as list_tests or get_test_definition, so an agent must infer 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 trailing phrase 'for result queries' implies the context in which this tool is useful, but no alternative is named and no precondition (e.g., which test/run must exist first) is stated. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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