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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds only the REST endpoint mapping (GET /v1/check-statuses/{checkId}), which is useful for orientation but discloses nothing about freshness, caching, rate limits, or the shape of the returned status.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before the API reference. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint line earns its place only marginally for an agent that cannot call REST directly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what 'status details' means — and it does not, leaving the return shape vague. For a simple one-parameter read with full schema coverage this is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single checkId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The endpoint template shows checkId is a path parameter, adding slight value, but no format, ID-source, or validity guidance beyond the schema.

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 (retrieve status details for a check) and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with list-oriented siblings like checkly_list_check_statuses. However, it never distinguishes itself from checkly_get_check or checkly_get_check_result, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only implied by the phrase 'for a single check'; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative among the several status/result/check getters in the sibling list. The agent must infer routing on its own.

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