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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: each run consumes the monthly quota and a checkId run can bypass a disabled state.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the primary action, then the override, then the quota caveat and follow-up hint. No filler sentences.

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, and the description compensates by stating the return value (runIds) and the tool to follow up with (get_run). Combined with the quota disclosure, an agent has everything needed to invoke and continue 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: checkId overrides the 'enabled' filter, which the schema's terse 'Run only this check' does not state.

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 action (run checks now) and the resource (a site's enabled checks), plus the two distinct modes: all enabled checks, or a single check via checkId. Easily distinguished from siblings like list_checks or get_run.

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?

Clearly says what is run by default (enabled checks) and the exception (one check with checkId, even if disabled). It also routes the agent to get_run as the follow-up, but does not name a sibling alternative for the 'don't run, just inspect' case.

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