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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: it blocks, sends no interim notices, and exits on completion, failure, or timeout. It stops short of saying what the caller observes on timeout/failure or what the maximum wait is.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and blocking behavior before the domain gloss on Kilotest. Efficient, though the trailing results-hierarchy sentence is background rather than invocation guidance.

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 no explanation, and the input source is documented. The remaining gap is timeout/failure semantics -- what an agent should expect or do when the max wait elapses -- which matters for a blocking call.

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% and both field descriptions already state they come from the report identifier returned by orderNewTest. The description's 'using the report identifier either tool returned' largely restates that, adding little beyond format examples already in the schema.

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 -- wait for an ordered job to complete -- and names the sibling tools that produce its input (orderNewTest / orderRetest). An agent can distinguish it from getReport or listReports without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly states the trigger condition (a job previously ordered via orderNewTest or orderRetest) and that it blocks. It does not explicitly name an alternative for a report that is already finished (e.g. getReport), so the when-not-to-use case is left to inference.

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