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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral details: it runs tests and returns a pass/fail report with counts and timestamp. It does not introduce any contradictory side effects, and the verification context implies read-only, non-destructive behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes all necessary details: coverage, output, and recommended usage timing.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to invoke it. No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly use it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly reflects that no input is needed beyond the implicit system state.

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 the tool runs the full regression suite with specific coverage details (35 canonical test vectors across 12 calculators), using the specific verb 'Run' and resource 'regression suite'. It is distinct from sibling tools that perform calculations or workflows.

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 the tool: 'Call this before using results in production workflows', providing a clear precondition for its invocation. It also implies it is for verification rather than calculation, distinguishing it from the sibling calculators.

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