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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which means it's a mutation but not destructive. The description adds that the reference is auto-generated from the section's series, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like authentication requirements, reversal possibilities, or impact on existing data. With annotations providing baseline safety, the description adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence about steps is an additional guideline but not necessary for the core purpose. No waste.

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 tool that adds a check, the description covers the main purpose and reference generation. However, it lacks output details (no output schema) and does not explain what happens when the check is added (e.g., confirmation, where it appears). The complexity is moderate with 7 params, but schema covers parameter semantics. It's adequately complete but not rich.

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 100%, so every parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds only the reference generation context, not parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool adds a check to a section and mentions reference generation, which is a specific function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_check' or 'set_result', so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 a clear context (adding a check to a section) and a behavioral note about steps followability, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus adding an issue or updating a check. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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