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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds real context beyond that: the required 'proposed' state transition, that the recipe then runs and alerts persistently, that interactive recipes click/type on the live site, and that user consent is mandatory with ack: true. This covers consent and real-world side effects that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 action and state, then the prerequisite lookup, then the consent constraint. No filler and every clause carries operative information.

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 and only two well-documented parameters, the description supplies everything needed to call it safely: the precondition, the sibling to consult first, the consent requirement, and the resulting behavior. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 meaning the schema does not: why ack exists (the recipe may act on the live site) and the interactive-recipe condition under which it becomes required. checkId is left to the schema, which is sufficient.

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 (approve), resource (custom monitor's proposed recipe), the qualifying state (status proposed), and the resulting effect (runs and alerts from now on). An agent can distinguish this from edit_custom_check or add_custom_check 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_check first to show rationale and steps, and states the condition under which approval is allowed (interactive recipes act on the live site, so only after the user agrees). Both the when and the precondition are spelled out.

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