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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: insights are automatically generated from all tester videos, and results come back as text plus structured data with no interactive UI. It does not cover latency, empty-result behavior, or cost of generation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the prerequisite placed last where it belongs. The middle sentence on what insights contain is somewhat long but earns its place by preventing misuse of the tool; no filler.

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 spelled out, yet the description still characterizes the payload (text + structured data, no UI). The main remaining gap is edge-case behavior — what is returned when insight generation is pending or empty — which is worth a line but not critical.

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% and the schema itself already says the id comes from list_tests, so the description's 'by its id' and list_tests hint largely restate structured data. Baseline 3 is correct for a single fully-documented parameter.

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 and resource ('Get the insights for one Userbrain test by its id') and then defines what an insight actually is — auto-generated findings from tester think-aloud videos with summaries and supporting clips. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_test, get_videos, and get_tasks.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use `list_tests` first to find the `testId`', which routes the agent to the correct discovery tool. It does not, however, say when to prefer get_insights over get_videos or get_test, or what to do if a test has no insights yet.

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