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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the run follows the normal result path and can open or resolve incidents, notes rate limits per check and per organization, and specifies required scope and role. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then adds side effects, rate limits, return semantics, follow-up tools, and auth requirements without wasted wording. Each sentence carries actionable information.

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?

Given a mutation-style trigger with annotations, a full output schema, and a single well-documented parameter, the description is complete. It covers purpose, side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, output status meaning, and follow-up tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single identifier parameter, including UID and slug examples. The description does not add identifier syntax or interpretation beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 action and scope: run a check once, now, in every region, instead of waiting for the next scheduled period. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as list_checks, get_check, and diagnose_check.

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 names concrete trigger contexts (right after a fix, on a freshly created check) and directs outcome reading to diagnose_check or list_results. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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