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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world reads, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: newest-first ordering, workspace access scoping, the quirk that AI-moderated studies remain processing while recruiting, and an explicit boundary that findings and session data are not returned.

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 scope and ordering, then capabilities, then the status caveat, then the return boundary. Dense but every sentence carries information; the hasResults caveat is the only part that could be tightened.

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 enumerated, yet the description still names metadata, Uxia links, result flags and total count, and explicitly excludes findings and session data. For a read-only list tool with three optional params, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 33%, so the description must compensate and largely does: query is defined as a title search, status is defined as the app's displayed status with a caveat about the processing/recruiting case, and limit is shown as a result cap. The mention of hasResults reads as an output flag rather than a parameter, which is slightly ambiguous but is clarified by 'result flags' in the return summary.

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 plus scope: tests in workspaces the caller can access, returned newest first. That scope and ordering immediately separate it from single-test readers like get_test or get_test_definition.

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?

Explains the optional narrowing behaviors (title search via query, status filter, limit) and gives an explicit rule for finding tests with results: check hasResults rather than filtering on completed. It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the alternative for findings or session data, so usage is clear but not fully routed.

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