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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the API endpoint (GET /reports?check_id=…) and the nature of the returned collection, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or error behavior — useful additions are modest.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the API reference. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys scope and the kinds of items returned. It doesn't describe the return shape (id/status fields), but the enumerated report types give adequate orientation for correct invocation.

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% and the sole check_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that reports are scoped to a check but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail 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 (List) and resource (reports), and clarifies scope — the reports that make up a single check — with concrete examples (document, facial similarity, watchlist). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular onfido_get_report sibling, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'that make up a check' implies the precondition of having a check_id and wanting the full set of its reports, which is reasonable context. However, it never contrasts with onfido_get_report (single report) or states when-not to use this listing tool, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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