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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing ordering, grouping, required counts, run counts, and the printable as_text behavior. It does not describe the response envelope or error handling, but for a read-only show tool the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary output content is front-loaded, and the optional as_text behavior is presented as a clear secondary instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the structured view contains and what the as_text branch returns. The parameters are simple and fully documented in the schema, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 already covers both parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the as_text output comes 'with a box against each step,' which clarifies the printable form. This is modest but real added value.

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 (one checklist) and the content of the view: ordered steps, grouped by section, required-count, and run-count. It distinguishes itself from checklist_list by emphasizing 'one checklist,' though it starts with a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'shows.'

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 is implied rather than explicitly stated: 'One checklist' signals this is for looking at a single checklist, and the as_text sentence explains when that option is useful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like checklist_list or run_show, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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