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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by stating 'This server runs none of them', removing any impression that listing the checks executes them. It also discloses the return shape, including the failure/note distinction, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Purpose and the no-execution caveat come first, with return details last. It is slightly verbose enumerating the returned fields (`name`, `rule`, `title`, `reports`, `ranBy`) when an output schema exists, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail returns, and its field enumeration is redundant but harmless. It covers what the tool is, that it takes no input, and that nothing is executed — enough for an agent to call it correctly; the main gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still explicitly says 'No input', confirming the empty schema rather than leaving an agent to infer it.

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 names a specific resource (the checks) and its provenance (the checker release the server was built with), and clarifies the checks belong to the model's gate rather than this server. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_rules and list_types, though the phrase 'the model's own gate' is somewhat opaque without prior context.

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?

'Use to see which rules a script enforces and which are left to a reader' gives a concrete scenario, but it never names an alternative (e.g. describe_rule or list_rules) or states when a different listing tool is the right choice. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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