List available checks

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

No annotations exist, so description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output (grouped list with reasons) but does not mention side effects, pagination, or performance. As a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and what the output provides (grouped, with reasons). Could mention output structure briefly, but overall sufficient.

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% (lang parameter fully described in schema). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter; it omits mention of lang entirely. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the work.

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?

Clearly states it lists every check, grouped by category, with reasons. Distinguishes from siblings (check_domain, explain_check) by listing all checks rather than focusing on one.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful to know what check ids exist,' guiding agents to use it when they need to discover available checks. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides indirect guidance.

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