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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lowered. The description adds real value beyond them: the exact return payload ('ordinalId + title only'), a negative behavior ('Does not return markdown'), and the constraint that exactly one locator must be supplied.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability. There is mild redundancy in restating the three locator types in both sentences, but nothing wasteful enough to hurt.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return payload and the exactly-one-locator rule that the schema (0 required params) leaves ambiguous. Auth requirements are covered in the schema field descriptions, so the picture is largely 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 coverage is 40% (below 50%), so the description must compensate, and it does by naming the three locator concepts (release label, plans folder/file path, named test run) that map to release, plansPath, and namedTestRunId. The remaining auth params (botId, projectApiKey) are already documented in the schema, so nothing critical is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list in-scope test scenarios) with the exact return shape (ordinalId + title only) and scopes it to three locator types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get-test-scenarios, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when executing tests for a plans path, release, or named test run') and names the alternative get-test-scenarios for detail-by-ordinal. It lacks an explicit when-not condition beyond the ordinal case, but the routing is clear.

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