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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds that the result is a 'cited answer', a small but real piece of output context; it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or cost of execution.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and result stated first and the parameter workflow second. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and 'get a cited answer' is a thin but adequate hint at the return. For a two-parameter tool whose complex nested argument is delegated to describe_check, this is nearly complete; only the return shape and any execution constraints remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the nested 'arguments' object has no declared properties and the description explicitly defers its shape to describe_check, which is the only meaningful guidance an agent can get for that unconstrained object. It also reinforces the required check_id without repeating schema text verbatim.

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 (run), resource (a check) and outcome (a cited answer), which is more than a restatement of the title. It also points to describe_check for the argument shape, giving some differentiation from siblings, though it never contrasts itself with search_checks or list_regulations.

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 implies a workflow by directing the caller to describe_check for arguments, and the schema notes check_id comes 'From search_checks', so the search → describe → run chain is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named or excluded.

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