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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the operation spends credit, is capped by max_spend_usd by estimate, and may draft missing cases/checks. It does not clarify whether drafted cases/checks are persisted or whether the test is asynchronous beyond directing the agent to call get_test.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core action, then cost behavior, then result retrieval, making it easy to scan.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key needs: source of prompt_id, cost implications, the max_spend_usd cap, drafting of missing material, and where to get results. Minor gaps remain around persistence of drafted cases/checks and execution timing, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some meaning by calling max_spend_usd an estimate-based credit cap and by tying prompt_id to load_prompts, but most semantic detail is already present in the structured fields.

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 specific verb and resource: test a prompt from load_prompts. It also clarifies that the tool uses the prompt's cases and checks, drafts missing ones, and directs the agent to get_test for results. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like test_prompt and get_test.

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?

The description makes clear this is used for prompts obtained from load_prompts, and it names get_test as the follow-up for results. It lacks an explicit contrast with test_prompt or a clear when-not-to-use statement, but the intended context is well signposted.

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