Explain a check

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the explanation contains: relevance, remediation, and references. However, it does not disclose lookup failure behavior, ID source requirements, or other operational details beyond the output content.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and the key outputs efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose and general output content. However, with no output schema and zero schema description coverage for the required id parameter, it should say more about the expected ID format or source and any lookup failure behavior. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

There is one required parameter, id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema supplies a regex pattern but no semantic description. The description only implies that the parameter identifies 'one check' and does not explain the ID format, where to obtain it, or what happens if it is invalid.

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 states a specific verb and resource: explain one check. It also outlines the content of the explanation: why the check matters, how to fix a failure, and references. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_checks by focusing on a single check, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling 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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need an explanation for a specific check. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_checks or ownership-related siblings, nor any stated prerequisites such as obtaining the check ID first. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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