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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description adds one valuable behavioral fact — the 20-question cap. It omits whether the template is created in draft or active state, whether it is immediately sendable, and any permission/quota requirements, which matters since openWorldHint=true suggests server-side side effects.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and its key constraint before the routing hint. Nothing here could be removed without losing 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?

For a creation tool with 5 params, no output schema and openWorldHint=true, the definition is thin on what comes back — an agent doesn't know whether it receives a template ID needed downstream for send_checkin. Annotations and inline schema cover the rest, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 60%: send_time, frequency_days and send_day_of_week are documented inline, but the two required params (name, questions) have no schema descriptions. The description only contributes the question-count cap; it says nothing about name uniqueness, whether questions is ordered, or how send_time/frequency_days combine to define the period.

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 and resource ("Creates a periodic check-in") plus a concrete constraint (up to 20 questions). It separates itself from send_checkin, the assignment sibling, but does not distinguish itself from update_checkin_template or create_anamnesis_form, which are also creation/edit surfaces for questionnaires.

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 clause "send_checkin assigns it to students" implies the workflow split — create here, assign there — which is genuinely useful routing. However, it never says explicitly when to choose this over update_checkin_template or create_anamnesis_form, and there are no stated prerequisites.

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