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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: results are partial until the test is done, then the full comparison (best model, per-model pass rate and cost, sample failures) appears. It stops short of noting error behavior for unknown IDs or that completion is what unlocks results, and says nothing about side effects or permissions.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core ('A test's status') and then enumerates the payload via a colon. No filler, though the result enumeration is dense enough to read as a list rather than prose.

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 must explain the return shape; it names the key fields but not the possible status values, and it omits how a caller should poll or use wait_seconds to reach the 'done' state. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: wait_seconds is documented in the schema, but test_id is bare. The description gives no hint about what a test_id is or where to obtain it, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter; only the phrase 'when done' loosely gestures at the waiting semantics already covered by 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?

The description states the resource (a test) and precisely what is returned: status, best model, per-model pass rate and cost, and sample failures. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_tests or test_prompt, though the retrieval verb itself is only implied by 'get' in the name rather than stated.

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: check a test's status, and read results once it is done. It never says when to prefer this over list_tests (to enumerate tests) or test_prompt (to create a run), and it does not mention that test_id must come from a prior create/list call.

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