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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing what the full check includes, which is especially important because there is no output schema. It doesn't describe error handling or nonexistent-reference behavior, but those are secondary for a read-only lookup.

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?

One efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the operation ('One check in full by its reference') and uses a colon to list the included components. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return contents, giving the agent a clear expectation of what it will receive. It does not address what happens if the reference doesn't exist, but for a read-only single-item lookup, the essential calling context (app and ref) and return contents are covered.

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% with both app and ref documented. The description reinforces the ref example ('AUTH-01') but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb and resource: retrieving one check in full by its reference. It enumerates what 'full' includes (preconditions, steps, expected result, platform statuses, issues), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_checks, relying on the tool name and context to convey the difference.

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 implies the appropriate use case: when you have a specific check reference and need complete details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_checks for summary-level queries. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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