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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add the operational context it does: the check is scheduled daily and in the nightly replay (Pro), it returns the created check, and it requires an API key. The auth requirement and scheduling behavior are genuinely useful details not present in the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the transformation, then runtime behavior, then return value and auth requirement. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool creates, where the result runs, and the auth prerequisite, which is close to sufficient. It does not state whether promoting the same trace twice creates duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=true), leaving one small gap.

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% and the single parameter (traceId) is documented in the schema, including its source (agentcheck_record or the traces endpoint). The description adds no further parameter syntax or constraints, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource: it turns an imported/recorded trace into a 'replayable check' with a defined golden (tool sequence + final-answer rubric). This is far more concrete than the sibling agentcheck_add_check, but the description never names or contrasts that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool operates on an 'imported or recorded trace', which suggests it follows agentcheck_record, and it notes the check runs daily and in the nightly replay (Pro). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over agentcheck_add_check or agentcheck_run_now.

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