List Bulk Checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that with ordering (newest first), returned fields (status and counts) and cost ('Free'), though it omits pagination behavior and the default result cap, which matters for a listing tool.

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 with no filler; scope, ordering, contents and cost are front-loaded in a single clause. Every phrase 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with a full annotation profile and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the limit parameter and how many results come back by default.

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 parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what it controls, its default of 20, or its 100 maximum. 'Most recent' hints at a result window but does not compensate for the undocumented limit.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('most recent bulk checks'), plus scope ('this caller's'), ordering ('newest first') and return contents ('status and counts'). It implicitly separates itself from get_bulk_check by being a list, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with list_watches, so it falls short of a 5.

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: 'this caller's most recent' suggests a quick recency overview, and the sibling set makes get_bulk_check the obvious alternative for a single check, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or what it excludes. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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