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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the watch_only interpretation ('result is what would have happened and nobody was turned away') and a privacy guarantee that the email address is never stored. These details materially affect how an agent understands the 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?

The description is three tight sentences: the first front-loads the returned fields and scope, the second clarifies watch_only semantics, and the third adds a privacy note. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: what data is returned, how to interpret watch_only results, and a privacy assurance. It is complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the site and result parameters. The description does not add meaning about how to use these filters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states that this tool lists recent BurrowGuard checks, including the fields returned, totals, and monthly usage. It distinguishes the resource 'checks' from sibling tools like list_burrowguard_sites, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 through the explanation of watch_only semantics (result is what would have happened), which helps interpret output, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like list_burrowguard_sites or get_dmarc_report.

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