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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the returned fields and precisely defines the result-summary semantics (counts over EXECUTED results, notExecuted, totalResults, withDefect, linkedDefects with their testCaseIds). That is the key ambiguous behavior for a read tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the return detail. The second sentence is dense and semicolon-chained, but nearly every clause carries distinct, non-derivable information.

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 fully documents the return shape and summary-field semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the response. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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 parameter is documented as the Stride test run UUID. The description only restates "by id" without adding format or edge-case guidance, so the schema does the work.

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 and resource with scope: "Fetch a single Stride test run by id." It explicitly distinguishes itself from stride.list_test_results and, by implication, from stride.list_test_runs by fetching one record rather than a collection.

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 routes the agent to stride.list_test_results when individual result rows are needed, which is the most likely confusion point. It doesn't address when to prefer stride.list_test_runs with a filter, but the single-by-id scope makes that fairly obvious.

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