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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result set (per-task statuses, total count for the filter) and that paging is via limit/offset, though it does not state the defaults (20/0) or how multiple filters combine.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then routing guidance, then required input, then optional filters — a logical order with no filler. The opening sentence is long and list-heavy, but every element it lists is genuinely differentiating information rather than padding.

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 nine parameters and no schema descriptions, this definition covers the filter surface and the follow-up path well, and an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation. Missing only minor operational detail (default paging values, filter combination semantics) for an otherwise self-sufficient read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does fairly well by naming every filter axis: status (with its three values), subgraph names, branches, variants, authors, check IDs, plus limit/offset paging. Gaps remain: default page size, whether filters are ANDed, and the expected format of ids/authors strings.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List past schema checks for a graph') and then enumerates exactly what each row contains (ID, status, timestamps, subgraph, variant, commit, per-task status, total count). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling GetCheckResults, which is named as the detail-fetching counterpart.

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?

It states an explicit workflow: 'Use this to find a check, then pass its ID to GetCheckResults for failure details,' which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also states the mandatory input ('Provide the graph ID') and the optional filtering/paging surface, leaving little to inference.

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