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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the one non-obvious behavioral fact - that each check carries a citation verdict - but says nothing about ordering, recency, volume limits, or pagination for a list endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key differentiator (citation status) is placed where it will be read first. It is efficient but so terse that it verges on under-specification rather than demonstrating tight structure.

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 input schema fields and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it covers just one field. An agent cannot tell how many checks are returned, whether results are scoped to the current actor/account, or how to page or time-bound them.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading param claims are made.

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 ("List") and resource ("recorded search checks"), plus the meaningful payload detail ("whether the business was cited"). It is distinguishable from soclo_articles_check_run by the word "recorded", but the description never names that sibling or clarifies the relationship explicitly.

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 only implied: "recorded" suggests reading historical results rather than triggering a new check, which points away from soclo_articles_check_run. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus check_run or check_quote, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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