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

Even with no annotations provided, the description discloses what the tool returns: full configuration, health state (UP/DOWN/PAUSED), and consecutive-failure count. This adequately conveys the read-only nature and output scope for a simple fetch operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action (fetch by id) and the key return contents. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it does, what it fetches, and what the response includes. No additional context (pagination, errors, side effects) is necessary for this tool's complexity.

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 sole parameter 'apiTestId' is already described clearly in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond echoing 'by id', so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('API test'), clarifies it fetches a single test by ID, and distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_api_tests and get_api_test_runs by emphasizing the single-item scope.

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 phrase 'by id' gives clear context for when to use this tool—when you have a specific API test ID and need its full configuration/health. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-item focus compared to sibling list/get-runs tools makes the intended usage obvious.

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