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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists the included field groups and explicitly notes that secrets (headers, body, HTTP auth) are omitted, which is useful for an agent handling sensitive data.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return scope. Every sentence contributes, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description clarifies what fields are returned and what secrets are excluded, which is important for a read tool. However, with a required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, it should explain what endpoint_id represents; that gap leaves the definition only partially complete for correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter (endpoint_id) is never mentioned in the description. The description provides no meaning, format, or example for the required parameter, so an agent must infer its purpose from the tool name alone.

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 clearly states it retrieves a single check ('One check') and names the categories of fields returned (assertion, DNS, TCP). It distinguishes itself from list_checks by implying a single-item fetch, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_check_results or other siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one check when you need its details. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_checks or get_check_results, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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