Verify a tracked fix

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: asynchronous queuing ('queues'), limited scope ('representative pages'), and non-guarantee of compliance. This adds context beyond annotations (which already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive). No contradictions.

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 two clarifying phrases. Every word serves a purpose, and no information is redundant or extraneous.

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 the simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and limitations. Minor omission of the return value type is compensated by the output schema.

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 sole parameter 'remediationItemId' is fully described in the input schema as 'A fix id returned by get_fixes.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 the verb 'queues' and resource 're-check of representative pages for one tracked fix', and explicitly contrasts with 'full-site re-scan' and 'compliance guarantee', distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_url or scan_site.

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 provides positive usage ('queues a targeted re-check') and negative boundaries ('not a full-site re-scan or compliance guarantee'), implying when not to use it. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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