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

Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description adds real behavior the annotations cannot: no credit spend, no waiting, no image bytes returned, capture-attached screenshotUrl, and the retention caveat that deleted evidence leaves verdict/bug-report text with bundleWarning. That last item is operational context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

It is long, but it is front-loaded with purpose, usage and required param before the detail, and nearly every clause carries distinct information (credits, image bytes, limits, retention). A tighter grouping of the evidence-field inventory would help, but there is little outright waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full return-value burden and does so: reportUrl, evidence contents, displayLimits counting, bundleWarning, and the verified-verification object. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by enumerating exactly what evidence=true yields and by stating the conditional interaction 'With evidence left at its default, requireVerified adds a verification object' — a dependency the schema does not express. It stops short of clarifying limit semantics beyond pointing at evidence.displayLimits.

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 ('Read one run's bug reports and evidence') and immediately carves out scope with siblings: wait_for_run for pending runs, list_runs for recent runs, get_screenshot for images. An agent can pick this apart from every relevant sibling without opening a schema.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('Use it after check, run_scenario, run_project, or wait_for_run reports a verdict') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('For a run still pending or running, call wait_for_run'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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