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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds substantial context: the exact collateral data destroyed, irreversibility, the checks:delete permission requirement and its connection-approval caveat, a 10-per-minute rate limit that returns rate_limited with nothing deleted, and an owner email notification. That is far beyond what the annotations convey.

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 destructive action and its irreversibility, then permissions, rate limits, and side effects in a logical order with no filler sentences. The only mild redundancy is the final sentence explaining return values, which the output schema already covers.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers destruction scope, reversibility, authorization, rate limiting with failure behavior, and side effects, while annotations and the output schema handle safety hints and return shape. Nothing material an agent needs before calling is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Check id (check_…).'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id's format or origin, and the closing sentence describes the return value rather than the input, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a check') and immediately enumerates the scope of what is removed: run history, incidents, uptime record. That destructive footprint clearly separates it from non-destructive siblings like pause_check or update_check without needing to name them.

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 makes the irreversible consequence and the monitoring stop explicit, which implicitly tells the agent this is a last-resort action, but it never states when to prefer an alternative such as pause_check or detach_check_from_dashboard. Usage is implied by consequence rather than spelled out as a decision rule.

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