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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'Read-only' is consistent with them. It adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as pagination defaults (page 1, limit 25) and the response shape (data, total, page, limit, pages).

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The sibling differentiation, filter guidance, and return shape are all covered without redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: scope, pagination defaults, available filters, return fields, and when to choose the sibling tool. The schema and annotations cover the remaining details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters semantically: run_id/checkpoint_id for pinpointing and status/request_hash/policy_snapshot_id/schema_snapshot_id for lineage auditing. This guidance is not present in the individual schema descriptions.

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: 'Search persisted checkpoints across all of the organization's agent runs.' It also names the sibling tool get_agent_run_checkpoints and clarifies the difference, so an agent can distinguish them immediately.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use get_agent_run_checkpoints when the run_id is already known and a full checkpoint list is needed, which implies this tool is for broader search and filtering across runs. It also maps specific filter fields to use cases like pinpointing a checkpoint or auditing lineage.

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