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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's marginal value is what it returns: most recent records, newest first, with runs/durations/late-or-failed flags. It doesn't mention pagination behavior or the 90-day plan history limit except indirectly, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by return shape, then the exclusion. No filler and no repetition of schema field types.

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 exists, so the description must convey return values – it does, specifying newest-first ordering and the fields carried for cron runs. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the from/to window and the range enum. The description adds only the semantic gloss on the `check` filter (content check, dependency or cron job, omitted for the site's own uptime checks), so the schema does the heavy lifting – baseline 3.

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 ('Returns the most recent checks'), enumerates the entities it can cover (site, content checks, dependencies, cron jobs), and explicitly contrasts with get_report. An agent can distinguish it from the ~60 siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks what a site's recent checks, response times or failures looked like') and closes with an exclusion plus named alternative ('Not for uptime percentages or totals over a range: use get_report'). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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