run_checks

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

The description discloses that each check is read-only ('read-only violation count'), the return structure (readiness score, overall status, per-check breakdown), and the severity mapping for status ('error' -> failing, 'warn' -> degraded). Since there are no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden and does so well.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: main action, read-only guarantee, return structure, and status logic. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema present, the description thoroughly explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the key behavioral aspects (read-only, severity, output format) without relying on the output schema. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, zero parameters merits a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it doesn't.

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 clearly states that the tool runs data-quality checks and returns a readiness summary. It specifies the verb 'Run' and the resource 'declared data-quality checks', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_checks' (which lists checks) and 'audit_verify' (likely a different type of check).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks direct guidance on prerequisites, when to prefer it, or when to avoid it. It is adequate but not proactive in helping the agent choose among siblings.

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