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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /v1/checks/{id}), which is mildly useful for orientation but not behavioural detail; it says nothing about error behaviour for unknown ids or payload size.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the endpoint reference is a compact second sentence. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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 simple read-only single-resource getter with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient, and 'full configuration' hints at the return shape. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the four sibling check-scoped getters, which the description does not address.

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 both parameters, including includeDependencies and its 'dependent resources (snippets, alert channels)' meaning, are already fully documented. The description adds no format or default information beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a single check's full configuration) scoped by id, and the word 'full' implicitly separates it from the partial sub-resource getters (status, result, alerts). It never names a sibling outright, so an agent still has to infer the routing among checkly_get_check_status / _result / _alerts rather than being told.

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: fetch one check by id when you need its complete configuration. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to the sibling tools that return narrower slices, so the agent must infer the choice from the tool names.

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