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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload (run aggregate, per-test status, step counts, summary) and a forward-looking caveat that component attribution is unavailable until the M2 column lands.

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, no filler. The second sentence is dense but every clause describes a distinct part of the returned data, so it earns its length.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly, including the attribution caveat. The only gap is the absence of polling/termination guidance, which is minor for a read-only status tool.

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?

There is a single parameter (runId) with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents that it comes from test_suite_run. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (suite run), and describes the payload it returns (run aggregate, per-test rollup). It is distinguishable from test_suite_run (which starts a run), though it never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Poll a suite run' implies the polling context, and the caveat about componentAttributionAvailable gives a data-freshness warning. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus test_suite_run, nor on polling cadence or when to stop.

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