Render a check as a markdown report

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: report IDs live in server memory only until exit, the tool is free and uncounted, and it expects a 'finished' check rather than an arbitrary input.

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 dense sentences each earn their place: purpose and output structure, usage condition and input sources, then a terse free/uncounted note. The content is front-loaded with the core verb and resource before details.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing what the report contains. It also covers both input alternatives, the memory constraint, the finished-check prerequisite, and cost behavior, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds useful cross-tool context by tying report_id to check_citations/check_document results and clarifying that either report_id or full report JSON can be supplied, though it does not add substantial new syntax-level detail.

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?

The description uses a specific verb phrase, 'Turn a finished check into a markdown diligence report,' and enumerates the report's exact composition: header, coverage/storage notices, sorted summary table, and per-row detail blocks. This makes the tool's role as a rendering step distinct from sibling checking and resolution tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user wants a report to keep or attach, or when the compact result was cut short. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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