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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are newest first by default, scope is limited to the authenticated user, and subdomains are optionally included. This covers the meaningful behavioral nuances without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default ordering, then briefly enumerates the supported filters. Every clause earns its place, and no unnecessary detail is included.

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?

Given the rich annotations, comprehensive parameter descriptions, and clear sibling context, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It states scope, ordering, and filtering capabilities, while the schema handles parameter details and the annotations handle safety expectations.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents every parameter. The description summarizes the filter dimensions (domain, URL, date range, status, test type) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it repeats the concepts rather than deepening them.

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 names a specific action and resource: "List visibility tests for the authenticated user, newest first." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gvt_list_prompts and from retrieval tools like gvt_get_test_results, because it explicitly scopes the operation to listing visibility tests.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs a filterable list of the authenticated user's visibility tests. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource and filtering scope are specific enough that an agent can infer this is the list-oriented counterpart to run/get/delete workflows.

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