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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent creation tool with destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: defaults for method/status/timeout/alerts/interval/region, the max_regions constraint from usage, and the fact that headers, body, and HTTP auth stay in the console.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs useful constraints into a compact paragraph with no obvious filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for a 28-parameter creation tool.

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?

Covers the essential create path and several important constraints, which is sufficient for a basic check. However, for a complex 28-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, many optional parameters remain unexplained, leaving gaps for advanced configurations.

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 description coverage is 0% across 28 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains key parameters and defaults (kind, port, regions, site linking) but leaves many optional parameters undocumented, including verify_ssl, follow_redirects, expected_status_codes, dns fields, tcp extras, and incident/alert toggles.

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: "Create a check," and names the supported kinds (http, api, dns, tcp). This clearly separates it from update_check/delete_check/get_check in practice, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides useful creation guidance: kind-specific defaults, "TCP requires port," "Pass regions only when you want more than the default," and the requirement to pass site_id, site_slug, and component_id together. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or sibling-tool routing.

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