list_tests

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and it usefully discloses that tag and title use substring ('contains') matching while IDs are exact filters, plus the limit default of 25. It does not disclose pagination termination, auth requirements, or result ordering.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact, uniformly formatted argument list. Each entry earns its place with no filler, though the 'Args:' block format is slightly verbose for a 7-param tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all optional parameters are accounted for. For a filtered list tool the definition is nearly complete, missing only pagination behavior guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the 7 parameters is documented, including the non-obvious relationship note 'via engagement__product' and the contains-vs-id matching distinction. Only offset is thinly described ('Pagination offset').

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 clear verb+resource ('List tests') and scopes it with 'optional filters,' so an agent knows this is a filtered read of test records. It does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like list_test_types or list_test_notes, relying on the resource noun to do that work.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the enumeration tool versus get_test for a single record or create_test for mutations.

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