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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful access-scoping context — that hidden claims and pending/rejected checks are unavailable — which tells the agent what it can and cannot retrieve. It stops short of describing return format or any auth/rate constraints, but the visibility rule is a genuine addition beyond the annotations.

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?

Only two sentences with no wasted words, but the first is a fragmented noun list rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does, and the availability constraint is placed after the field list. Efficient in length, weaker in 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 output schema, listing the returned contents (environment, method, evidence reference, interests, recorded review) is genuinely useful for a read tool, and the visibility constraint rounds it out. A brief note on what happens for a non-existent or pending check would make it 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?

There is a single parameter (checkId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance for the ID beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 is a bare noun list ('Public accepted check, environment, method, evidence reference...') that implies reading a check but never states a verb or explicitly says it retrieves one; the title carries the verb. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling morrowkin_complete_check_disclosure, which likely covers the hidden/full-disclosure case.

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 second sentence gives a real usage boundary — only public accepted checks are available, and pending/rejected checks are excluded. However, it never names the alternative (e.g. complete_check_disclosure) for hidden claims, so the agent must infer the fallback path rather than being routed to it.

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