describe_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It minimally mentions that the tool returns a dictionary with details, but does not address authentication, rate limits, side effects, or whether it is safe/read-only. This is insufficient for a read operation.

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 very concise: one line summary, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately summarizes the return fields (name, service, etc.) without needing to restate the schema. For a simple tool with one parameter, it covers the essential information, though it could reference the output schema for exact structure.

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 only specifies 'check_id' as a string with a title. The description adds significant value by providing an example format ('SRA-GUARDDUTY-01'), which helps agents understand the expected format. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the example compensates well.

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 action 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'specific check'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_checks_by_account_type' and 'run_check' by focusing on a single check's details.

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 implies usage when you have a check_id and need details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The example format provides some guidance.

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