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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that statuses are 'derived per platform' and by interpreting what retest and untested mean. It does not describe output shape, pagination, or ordering, but given the annotations the additional context is sufficient for a mid-range score.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and scope, and the second sentence provides immediately useful filter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what is listed, the app scope, and the meaning of important filters. There is no output schema, but the phrase 'checks ... with their derived status per platform' gives a sufficient high-level return expectation. It could add pagination details, but those are already in the schema's limit parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the practical meaning of the filter enum values: failing, retest, and untested. This adds real decision-making value for an agent choosing a filter. It does not cover every parameter, but the schema already handles those, and the filter semantics are the most behaviorally important.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'checks in an app' and adds that statuses are 'derived status per platform', which differentiates it from a plain list or a single-check tool like get_check. The title supplies the missing verb 'List', and the plural scope is unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 concrete guidance on when to use specific filter values: 'failing' to see broken items, 'retest' for unverified fixes, and 'untested' for items nobody has looked at. However, it does not contrast this tool with siblings such as get_check or list_issues, nor state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly framed against alternatives.

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