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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds a plan requirement, pricing under pay-as-you-go, plan inclusion, and the fact that reviewer notes are returned. It does not describe failure behavior for unknown ids or rate limits, but given the read-only annotation, the added context is meaningful and non-contradictory.

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?

Dense but each sentence adds information: status list, plan requirement, error-reporting path, and pricing. The leading 'INFLUENCE —' and the trailing 'See apis://prices' are slightly extraneous, but the overall length is appropriate for the behavioral and cost information conveyed.

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?

The operation is simple; the description covers what is returned (statuses and notes), the required plan, pricing, and an error-handling alternative. With no output schema, it reasonably explains the return shape, though it omits behavior for invalid or unknown ids and any polling guidance.

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?

The schema documents context but not id (50% coverage); the description says 'The id identifies the request,' which adds only minimal semantics and no format or example. The context parameter is already fully described in the schema, and the description does not add to it. Thus the description partially compensates for the missing id documentation but not richly.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource as 'a check request by id' and enumerates the possible statuses (queued, in_review, running, done, rejected, needs_info), so an agent can tell this is a status lookup. The opening 'INFLUENCE —' is stylized and lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', and it does not contrast with sibling lookups such as my_checks or request_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States the precondition that the Influence plan is required and explicitly says to use report_correction or the api-evangelist repo for error reporting, giving a when-not and an alternative. It does not spell out when to prefer this over related check-management tools (e.g., my_checks, request_check), so usage guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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