get_test_run_test_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the scoping constraint (one test run), no pagination, result volume, or return-shape context; with the lower bar set by annotations, this is adequate but not additive.

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?

Two sentences, but the second ('Retrieve all test results for a specific test run using its unique identifier') largely restates the first ('Get all test results for a test run'). The lead is front-loaded and short, but half the text is redundant.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval with no output schema, the description covers the core action and scope but omits anything about result volume, pagination, or ordering, and gives no help distinguishing it from the many sibling test-result endpoints.

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?

One required nested parameter (path.testRunId) with 0% reported schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It only says 'using its unique identifier', which restates the identifier's role without adding type, format, or nesting guidance beyond the schema's own testRunId description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('test results for a test run'), and the second sentence narrows the scope to a single test run by its identifier. It doesn't differentiate itself from close siblings like get_test_result_collection or get_test_case_test_results, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives in a crowded sibling set (get_test_result_collection, get_test_case_test_results, get_test_run_test_cases). The use case is only weakly implied by the phrase 'for a specific test run'.

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