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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description earns credit for extra context: it discloses the shape of each returned step (teststep id, type, instruction text, response count) and that output is text + structured data with no interactive UI. The id-provenance link to get_videos is genuinely useful behavior an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by only relevant elaboration on structure, id resolution, and prerequisite. The parenthetical explanation is slightly long, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

The one-param tool is fully covered: prerequisite (list_tests), id resolution across tools, and content of returned steps are all stated. An output schema exists, yet the description still adds the cross-tool id mapping that makes the tool usable in context.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single required param, the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for testId ('from list_tests') and explains that teststep ids returned here are the same ids referenced by get_videos responses, which is meaningful cross-parameter semantics.

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 tasks (test steps) of a Userbrain test by its id') and immediately scopes it with what the data actually is. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_test, get_videos, and list_tests.

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 entry path ('Use list_tests first to find the testId') and a concrete cross-tool usage rule: use this tool to resolve the teststep ids that get_videos task responses reference. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when get_test alone suffices), so it stops just short of a 5.

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