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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: result ordering (newest-first), the compact field shape, and the limit bounds (default 20, max 50), which tells the agent truncation is possible.

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 dense sentences, zero filler. Purpose and ordering come first, then return shape, then filtering, then the sibling redirect, then limits — each sentence carries a distinct, useful fact.

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 takes on the job of describing the return shape and does so by enumerating the compact fields. Combined with filter options, ordering, and limit bounds, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 50% — limit and status have no schema descriptions — but the description compensates by stating the default (20) and max (50) for limit and by naming status and suiteId as the two filters. Format/encoding of the UUID filters is still unspecified, so not a 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List test runs in a Stride project") with a stated ordering (newest-first) and scope. It explicitly separates itself from stride.get_test_run, though it does not address the nearest sibling, stride.list_test_results, leaving the agent to infer which listing returns which entity.

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 clear usage context (filter by status or suiteId) and routes the agent to stride.get_test_run when per-run result detail is needed. It stops short of explicit exclusions or prerequisites, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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