passive_check

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Validation Check' aligns. It adds scheduling context (Day 14/30/45/60/90) that is beyond annotations, but lacks detail on what actions or side effects occur.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and scheduling details. No wasted words, though more structure could help.

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 check tool with one param and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks details on return value or what exactly is validated, which could be important for an agent.

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 covers the single parameter (market_name) with 100% description coverage. The main description does not elaborate on parameter usage, but the schema already provides sufficient context.

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?

Description clearly indicates it's a validation check for assets with scheduled performance intervals (14/30/45/60/90 days), distinguishing it from other check tools like daily_check or rapid_check by the 'passive' and scheduled nature.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description mentions scheduled checks but does not specify prerequisites or conditions where this tool is preferred.

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