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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by explaining the functional consequence of the flag ('stop probing and stop alerting'), which an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone. It stops short of stating reversibility or persistence of the disabled state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the routing advice. Zero filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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 2-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and the sibling alternative. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the state persists or how it interacts with update_check.

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% and the schema already spells out both parameters, including the true/false meaning of 'disabled' and where check_id comes from. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (enable/disable) on a specific resource (check) and immediately scopes it as non-destructive, which distinguishes it from delete_check and update_check in the sibling list.

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 names the alternative and the selecting condition: 'use this rather than delete_check for a temporary pause.' It does not address the toggle vs. update_check boundary, but the when-to-use guidance is clear and actionable.

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