Get a Watchgoose check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns current state and schedule, and explains that Cron/OnCalendar checks use schedule plus grace while simple checks use timeout plus grace.

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 with no redundancy. The primary purpose and identifier are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful behavioral nuance without unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the relevant scheduling nuance. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents unique_key as a 40-character stable identifier from list_checks. The description repeats 'stable unique_key' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('one check'), identifier ('stable unique_key'), and the content returned ('current state and schedule'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings: list_checks lists checks, while this retrieves a single 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you need a single check by its unique_key, not a list. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the 'one check by its stable unique_key' phrasing implies the appropriate use case, and the schema parameter notes the key comes from list_checks.

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