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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, the compact projection of returned fields, and the pagination ceiling of 50 — context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Three densely packed sentences: purpose and ordering first, returned field shape second, filtering and pagination last. Nothing is redundant with the tool name and every clause adds usable 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 supplies the returned field list, ordering, and pagination behavior — enough to call and interpret results. Only edge cases (empty result behavior, error conditions) are unaddressed, which is acceptable for a simple 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 only 33% (only projectId is documented), so the description must compensate — and it does for limit ('Default 20, max 50') and for status filtering. It stops short of enumerating the DRAFT/ACTIVE/COMPLETED values, though the schema already carries the enum, so the gap is minor.

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 ('List test plans in a Stride project') plus ordering ('newest-first'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like list_test_runs or list_test_suites, which a 5 would require.

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 notes status filtering and limit bounds, which implies how to narrow results, but it never says when to choose this over list_test_runs/list_test_cases or what conditions warrant a status filter. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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