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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is its disclosure of the return payload: root cause, fix with a worked example, verification without Trakis, and audit counting. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about error handling for unknown codes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a compact enumeration of the explanation's sections. Slightly list-heavy but every clause maps to real returned content, so little is wasted.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly. Safety is covered by annotations and the lone parameter by the schema; only failure behavior for an unrecognized check code is left unaddressed.

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 single 'id' parameter is already documented with format examples ('CRAWL-008') and case-insensitivity. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 ('The full explanation of one Trakis check') and enumerates exactly what that explanation contains. The singular scope implicitly separates it from the plural list_checks/search_checks siblings, but neither sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus list_checks or search_checks, nor any prerequisite (e.g. 'after finding a check code with search_checks'). It only describes the content payload, leaving the selection decision to the caller.

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