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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond them: the sort order ('status then createdAt'), the default and maximum page size (50/200), and the exact shape of each returned row. No pagination cursor or truncation behavior is disclosed, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: resource scope, row shape, filtering guidance, ordering, and paging limits. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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, describing the row fields is essential and is done well. Combined with ordering and paging limits, an agent has nearly everything needed. Missing only how results relate to parent run retrieval and whether the limit is a hard truncation.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does, documenting the limit default/max and the status filter with a concrete enum example. Only testRunId is left to the schema, which already describes it as a UUID.

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 the individual result rows for a Stride test run', which is clearly distinct from run-level listing (list_test_runs). It also enumerates the row payload, but never names a sibling tool, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Filter by status — e.g. status=FAILED to fetch just the failing cases' gives a concrete usage scenario. It also clarifies provenance by saying the defect link is 'set by record_test_results'. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_test_run or list_test_runs for summaries.

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