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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns one run with every executed case, including status, timing, and per-case IDs. The 'Requires project context' note also informs runtime prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 short sentences deliver the core behavior, output details, ID provenance, and an alternative tool route. Every sentence earns its place, and the key distinguishing behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Given the single parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the main return contents (status, timing, per-case rows) and the required context. It does not specify the exact response shape, but the described contents are sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 describes testRunId as a public GUID. The description adds value by indicating how to obtain a valid testRunId from run_test_suite or get_test_results, which is semantic guidance beyond the schema alone.

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: 'Get ONE run with every case it executed' with concrete details about status, timing, and per-case rows. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools such as get_test_result and get_test_results by specifying the exact granularity and ID routing.

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 description explicitly names where testRunId comes from ('run_test_suite or get_test_results') and tells the agent when a case id should go to get_test_result instead. It also notes the prerequisite of project context, giving clear usage direction without ambiguity.

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