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 and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the notion that this is a catalogue/listing, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, filtering behavior, or what the returned checks/surfaces contain.

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 short sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded, but the terseness comes at the cost of decoding jargon rather than earning its place through clarity.

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?

No output schema, a nested free-form query parameter, and no explanation of what 'checks' or 'delegated checkout surfaces' are. With an open-ended catalogue of 60+ sibling tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what it will get back or how to use the result.

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% and the single optional 'query' object is documented as 'Optional query parameters' with free-form string/number/boolean values. The description adds nothing about what query keys are meaningful (e.g., filtering by check type or surface), so the schema's permissive bag-of-values remains unexplained.

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 'List ... checks and delegated checkout surfaces', giving a verb and a resource, but 'Agentic Pay Kit checks' and 'delegated checkout surfaces' are internal jargon that an agent cannot map to concrete artifacts. Siblings like agentic_pay_charge and agentic_pay_reverify establish the domain, but the description doesn't differentiate this enumeration tool from them beyond 'List'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as agentic_pay_charge or agentic_pay_reverify. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before calling the other two.

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