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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real value: result ordering, the explicit caveat that "report contents are not included," and the presence of has_more/next_offset for paging. It omits auth requirements and what an empty result looks like, keeping it from 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, each carrying distinct information: what is listed and in what order, what the report payload does and does not contain, and how paging works. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and there is no filler.

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 output schema, the description correctly spends its words on return shape (status, report_url, has_more, next_offset) and the important limitation that report contents are excluded. The only gap is the lack of a boundary statement against list_recent_checks, which is the likely source of mis-selection for an agent.

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 limit, offset, role_title, and candidate_name are all documented with examples and bounds in the schema itself. The description only restates that filtering by name or role is possible and connects next_offset to paging, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Lists completed reference checks") and adds ordering ("most recently completed first") plus the fields returned (status, report_url). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_recent_checks, so the agent must infer that "completed" versus "recent" is the dividing line.

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?

It states the available filters (candidate name, role title) and the paging behavior, which implies when the tool is appropriate. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_recent_checks or get_check, and no prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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