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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the scope (every check, or one type) and the shape of the result (current result plus one-line summary).

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: the first defines the scope and output, the second gives the use case. The documentation link is placed last and the key framing is front-loaded.

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?

Complete enough for a read-only summary tool – purpose, scope, filter behavior, and use case are all present, and an output schema exists to carry return structure. Slightly short of 5 only because it does not mention issue severity semantics.

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 100%, with check_type, monitor_id, and only_with_issues all documented in the schema including the enum. The description only restates the ability to filter to one check type, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (result and summary for every check), and distinguishes itself from the sibling report tools by framing itself as the aggregate overview versus the per-type reports like get_broken_links or get_certificate_health.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the fastest way to answer 'is anything wrong right now' before drilling into a specific report, which is clear usage context. It does not name specific sibling alternatives by name, keeping it below a 5.

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