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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the call is asynchronous ('Queue', 'Returns job_id'), it fans out across all live regions, and it is not idempotent in spirit since each call queues a new probe. It omits any throttling/rate-limit or duplicate-job caveat, which is the main remaining gap.

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 action and scope, followed by the return contract. Zero filler and nothing that repeats structured fields verbatim.

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 one-parameter trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns (job_id and regions), and where the actual result lives. An agent has everything needed to call it and know what to do next.

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 carry the load. It implies the parameter selects 'one check', which gives partial meaning, but it never explains why the field is named endpoint_id when the description talks about checks — that identifier mismatch is left unresolved.

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') plus the scope ('one from each of its live regions'), which no sibling does. The parenthetical clarifying that these are the same regions a scheduled run uses removes ambiguity about what 'live regions' means.

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 routes the agent to the next step: 'Call get_check_results with view status for the result; it is not included here.' That is a clear when-to-use-this-then-that instruction. It does not contrast against alternatives such as get_check or a scheduled run, so it stops short of a full 5.

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