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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that schedules are 'plan-gated' and that the suite 'flags drift', which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects like persistence, immediate vs. scheduled execution, or verification requirements for PSTN targets (those live in the schema, not the main description).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and optional schedule. It is concise, with no wasted words, and earns a high score for structure.

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 covers the tool's purpose and the optional schedule, but with no output schema it omits what is returned (e.g., suite ID). It also doesn't explain the verification requirement for PSTN targets, which is only in the schema. For a create tool with nested objects, this is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The main description repeats schedule values and mentions scenarios/personas, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents each parameter well, the description does not need to compensate.

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 names a specific resource ('reusable test suite') and action ('create'), and elaborates with 'named set of scenarios/personas pinned to a target voice agent you run'. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like run_test or create_monitor, as it emphasizes reusability and optional scheduling.

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 implies usage for persistent, scheduled test suites ('reusable', 'optionally give it a schedule so it runs automatically'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over run_test or create_monitor, nor mention any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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