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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a scope caveat about what is not returned; it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid category/slug or lookup failure.

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?

One efficient sentence with the content summary front-loaded, followed by a short exclusion clause. No filler, though it is terse enough that the exclusion clause carries more structural weight than its content justifies.

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?

For a simple read-only fetch with no output schema, the description sketches the returned fields and rules out questionnaire/results content. Combined with rich annotations and mostly documented parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only failure modes remain unaddressed.

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 67%: locale and category carry full descriptions (including a cross-reference to search_tests and locale fallback behavior), while slug is undocumented but self-evident. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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 resource (the detail sheet for one test) and enumerates what it contains: presentation, measured dimensions, duration. The closing clause ('Aucune question ni aucun résultat') distinguishes it from siblings like start_test and get_example_report, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied via negative scoping: 'no questions, no results' hints that start_test and get_example_report are the tools for those needs, but no alternative is named and no when-to-use condition is stated. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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