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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (Kilotest's purpose, the report→issue→violator element→diagnosis hierarchy) but never says whether the request returns immediately or must be awaited, despite an awaitTest sibling implying asynchronous behavior.

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 its condition; the second sentence earns its place by explaining what Kilotest is and how results nest. 'Process my request' is slightly vague phrasing but not wasteful.

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 described. However, for a non-read-only, non-idempotent submission tool sitting next to awaitTest, the absence of any statement about whether the test runs synchronously or must be polled is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 URL, reason and description formats and length bounds are already fully documented. The description's mention of the listReports naming convention is background rather than added parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete action (request a test of a page) and a scoping condition (no report exists yet), which separates it from retest-style siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from orderNewTest or requestRetest, so the agent must infer the boundary from the 'no report available yet' clause alone.

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?

'a page about which no report is available yet' is a clear when-to-use condition that implicitly routes existing-report cases to requestRetest. No sibling is named explicitly and no prerequisites (e.g. required account/permissions, sync vs async behavior) are stated.

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