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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well by stating that the operation costs nothing and does not scan. It also explains the kind of explanatory content returned. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or response shape beyond the conceptual explanation.

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 waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by practical sourcing and behavioral constraints.

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 one-parameter explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, id sourcing, and the non-scanning/cost-free nature, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single id parameter, including its source and an example. The description reinforces the source ('from list_checks or a report') but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb and resource (explain one check) and clarifies the content of the explanation: what it looks at, why it matters, and what good looks like. It also distinguishes this from scanning tools by saying it does not scan.

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?

It tells the agent where to get the required id: from list_checks or a report. It also clarifies that the operation costs nothing and does not scan, which helps distinguish it from scan_page and request_site_scan. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use it.

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