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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the response embeds the latest run alongside the test configuration. It does not say what happens when the id is unknown or whether embedded run data can be absent.

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?

A single short sentence fragment with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style leaves the operation itself implicit rather than stated outright.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of previewing the returned fields, including the non-obvious embedded latest run. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single testId parameter is documented in the schema with its t_… format, so the description need not compensate. It adds no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.

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 enumerates what a single test record contains (start address, requirement, plan, options, latest run), which implies a fetch-by-id operation, but it never states an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_run or get_build beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a known test id, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g., list_test_files or get_run for run-level detail). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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