Plain-language explanation of one check id: what it looks at, why it matters to a service business, and what to do. Explains osp-1 through osp-20 and agent-readiness check ids. Other engines' finding ids are not supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkId | Yes | A check id from a result, for example osp-7 or discoverability.robotsTxt. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the scope of supported check ids and the nature of the output (plain-language explanation with three components). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds scope constraints and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it supports, and what it doesn't. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output format, but since there's no output schema and the description already says 'plain-language explanation,' this is acceptable.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the checkId parameter with an example. The description adds context about what values are valid (osp-1 through osp-20, agent-readiness ids) and what is not supported, which is useful. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema's example, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool's purpose: providing a plain-language explanation of a check id, including what it looks at, why it matters, and what to do. It explicitly names the supported check id ranges (osp-1 through osp-20 and agent-readiness check ids) and excludes other engines' finding ids, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform checks or audits.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to understand a check id from a result. It explicitly states what is not supported (other engines' finding ids), which helps an agent avoid misuse. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for unsupported ids or describe when to use siblings like get_audit_report, so it's clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.