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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the returned configuration is "scrubbed," so an agent knows secrets are not exposed. It stops short of describing response size, pagination, or permission requirements, keeping it below the top band.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and nothing wasted. The trailing "GET /checks/{id}" restates the endpoint somewhat redundantly, which costs it the top score.

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 lookup with 100% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (full scrubbed config, optional result/uptime) well enough to call it correctly. It could be more explicit about how the optional flags change the payload, preventing a 5.

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 are already documented in the schema (including the customer_id sub-account nuance and the example check id). The description only echoes the optional last_result/uptime behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 ("One check by id with its full (scrubbed) configuration") and names the scope, which clearly separates it from list_checks. It does not explicitly name the closely-related siblings (get_check_summary, get_check_results, get_check_uptime), so an agent must infer the boundary from the "optionally include" clause.

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: the phrase "Optionally include its latest result and uptime" hints that result/uptime data can be requested here rather than via a separate tool, but no when-to-use condition or alternative is stated. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer get_check_summary over this call.

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