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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the lack of side effects, and the description does not contradict it. It adds behavioral context by stating the output includes access level and expiry. While it omits potential error conditions or authentication requirements, the core behavior is well communicated beyond the annotation.

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, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main action and output, then immediately addresses usage and alternative tools. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 mentions the requirement for project context and references the alternative tool, which is essential for routing. It does not list permissions or prerequisites, but for a read-only list operation, this is not critical. The absence of an output schema is not a gap since the description already indicates the returned fields. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 a complete description for testRunId ('Public Id (Guid) of the test run'), so coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter, but the schema description is sufficient. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage, where the description adds minimal value.

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 lists share links for a test run, including access level and expiry. It also distinguishes itself from manage_shared_report, which handles creation, extension, or revocation. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool (to see existing share links) and when to use the alternative (manage_shared_report for create/extend/revoke). The note about requiring project context adds practical guidance. This leaves no ambiguity about the appropriate invocation scenario.

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