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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: authentication is required, anonymous callers have no identity to scope the list, and pricing/plan information is provided. It does not describe the return shape or pagination, but those are minor given the simple listing nature.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The pricing and plan details add some extra length, but they are relevant for tool selection and cost awareness, so they earn their 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?

With no required parameters, a fully documented parameter, and a clear description of scope, auth, and alternative routing, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only missing piece is the response format, but no output schema is provided and the tool is a simple list operation.

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 only parameter, context, is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, 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 identifies the resource precisely: 'the check requests you filed, newest first.' It distinguishes the tool from the sibling check_status by noting that anonymous callers should use check_status for a single request, though it lacks an explicit verb like '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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: it requires a key or logincars, and it explicitly tells anonymous callers to use check_status instead. This clearly states when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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