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

The readOnlyHint annotation indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description does not contradict that. As a 'get' tool, it is implicit that no modifications occur. The description adds some detail about optional output flags but does not overpromise side effects.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core functionality and usage guidance. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the repetition of parameter meanings in the second sentence is slightly redundant given the schema.

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 that there is no output schema, the description usefully indicates what the tool returns (detailed suite info, test cases, and optionally stats and extraction variables). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality, though it does not specify the exact structure of the returned data.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the three parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description merely restates the purpose of includeStats and includeExtractionVariables without adding new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves detailed information about a test suite, including its test cases. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_test_suites by specifying that it is used when the suite ID is already known, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool ('when you already have the suite id') and provides the alternative for browsing suites ('to browse the project's suites use list_test_suites'). This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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