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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/reporting), which is mildly useful context. It does not disclose return shape, time-series bucketing behavior implied by granularity, rate limits, or empty-range behavior. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences with the scope front-loaded and the API mapping as secondary detail. Nothing is wasted and the most important qualifier (aggregated, across checks and groups) comes first.

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 six optional time-range parameters and no output schema, the agent must infer the quickRange vs from/to relationship and what a response bucket looks like. The description supplies resource identity but not enough to call it confidently; an output schema would have relieved much of this.

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 every parameter (to, from, timezone, quickRange, granularity, filterByTags) is already documented with examples and an enum. The description adds no parameter meaning, and its phrase "across checks and groups" could suggest filtering by check/group that no parameter actually supports. Baseline 3.

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: an aggregated availability/performance/SLA report spanning checks and groups, which separates it from result-level siblings like checkly_get_check_result or checkly_list_check_results. It stops short of naming an alternative or scoping its aggregation window, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over checkly_list_check_results or checkly_get_check_status when the user wants rollup metrics. The description also omits how to choose between quickRange and from/to, which is the main decision an agent must make here.

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