search_test_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true. The description adds significant behavioral details: strict TQL syntax (mandatory spaces, double quotes, folder paths), supported fields and operators, and the return format. No contradictions.

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?

The description is compact yet comprehensive. It front-loads the purpose, then covers constraints, examples, and return format without redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, query constraints, parameter usage, and return structure. The readOnlyHint annotation also supports completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the 'query' parameter by detailing allowable syntax and constraints beyond the schema's brief 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?

The description starts with 'Search Zephyr Scale test runs (test cycles) with TQL', clearly stating the verb, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_test_run (single) and create_test_run (creation).

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?

The description explicitly states the supported fields, operators, and syntax for TQL queries, guiding when to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives but clearly implies it is for searching test runs, not test cases.

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