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

The description discloses the exact information returned (last run time, result, spec version, pending count) and adds interpretive value ('Tells you which environment's results you can trust'). The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds behavioral context without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output fields, the second provides usage guidance and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description fully explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and a necessary precondition. With no output schema, the description covers the expected result fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters; the baseline of 4 applies because the description appropriately omits parameter details that don't exist.

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: it provides per-environment verification of contract tests, listing last run time, result, spec version, and pending cases. It distinguishes itself from get_test_results by explicitly stating 'for one suite's run history use get_test_results'.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use this for the per-environment overview; for one suite's run history use get_test_results', which clearly directs the agent to the correct tool for the intended scenario. It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context'.

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