A/B test status and results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses that refresh=true triggers a live fetch from Instagram before the decision, which is a real network/latency implication an agent should know about. It doesn't cover failure behavior for an unknown test_id, which keeps it below 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The return contents are front-loaded and the refresh behavior is appended as a second, self-contained clause. Every phrase carries 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 correctly takes on the job of describing what comes back, and it does so at the right level of detail for a read-only inspection tool. The main residual gap is error/not-found behavior and whether refresh incurs added latency or rate limits, which would matter for an open-world 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It fully explains the non-obvious parameter, refresh, including its default-off implication and its side effect of pulling current numbers from Instagram. test_id is left unelaborated, but its meaning is unambiguous from the tool's purpose.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Shows") with a specific resource ("an A/B test") and enumerates the returned fields: per-version publishing status, link, latest metrics, decision time, and the verdict with confidence and next step. That makes it distinguishable from siblings like list_ab_tests or stop_ab_test. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the single-test inspection tool versus list_ab_tests for enumeration, and "refresh: true pulls current numbers from Instagram before the decision" gives one concrete conditional behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer it over list_ab_tests or stop_ab_test.

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