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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) by disclosing that the call is asynchronous, that it queues work, and that it returns a job_id rather than the outcome. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs and isn't captured by the structured fields. It stops short of stating what a probe actually does or any rate/limit behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the follow-up call. No filler and nothing restated from the schema.

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, the description correctly supplies the return value (job_id) and the retrieval path, which would otherwise be missing. The only real hole is the input parameter's meaning, which neither schema nor description resolves.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: endpoint_id is never mentioned, and 'one check' actually conflicts with the parameter name. The agent is left guessing whether to pass a check ID or an endpoint ID.

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 ('Queue a probe for one check'), and explicitly separates it from get_check_results, the tool that returns results. Slight friction: the description says 'one check' while the sole parameter is endpoint_id, leaving a small ambiguity about the resource identifier.

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?

Tells the agent exactly what to do next when a result is needed: 'Call get_check_results with view status for the result; it is not included here.' That is explicit routing and an exclusion. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_check or other read tools beyond the result-is-separate point.

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