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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description need not restate safety; it adds a useful domain gloss on what a check group is and names the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/check-groups). It does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, or whether results are truncated despite the presence of page/limit parameters.

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 padding; the core purpose is front-loaded and the endpoint reference is a compact, useful tail. Nothing 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and an explicit readOnlyHint, no output schema is needed and the description is largely sufficient. The gap is that pagination — the page/limit parameters — goes unexplained behaviorally (defaults, max page size, whether all results return), which is the main thing an agent would need beyond the schema.

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 all four parameters (tag, name, page, limit) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about filtering or paging semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('List all check groups') and even disambiguates the domain object with a parenthetical ('shared config for a set of checks'), which is genuinely useful for an agent unfamiliar with Checkly. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling checkly_get_check_group, but the list-vs-get distinction is readily inferable from the names.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. It does not tell the agent whether to prefer this over checkly_get_check_group for a single group, nor mention that tag/name filters exist for narrowing results. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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