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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about how pings arm checks and expectations after timeout/schedule plus grace period, but it does not disclose tool-specific behavior such as sorting, pagination, or response shape beyond the existing schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, resource, and filters. The second sentence is concise and adds useful domain context, though it is somewhat tangential to actually invoking list_checks.

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 low-complexity, read-only list operation with a fully described input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies project scope and filtering, though explicit sibling differentiation would make it fully self-contained.

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%, with slug, tags, and limit each already described in the input schema. The description only restates the slug/tags filter idea and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a precise action and resource: 'List checks in this Watchgoose project'. It also states the optional filters (slug or tags), and the collection-scope wording naturally distinguishes this from the sibling tools get_check and list_flips.

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 through 'optionally filtered by slug or tags', but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with get_check or list_flips. There is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, only a clear statement of what the tool does.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explains key output semantics: up: 1 means became up, up: 0 includes down/paused/new-after-resume, and pause/resume that changes status records a flip. This materially helps an agent interpret results and is not visible in the schema alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the essential semantics of the up field and flip recording. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns, how results are ordered, and what counts as a flip. The required unique_key and optional time filters are documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds only the general notion of 'optional time filters,' which aligns with start/end/seconds but provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List retained status changes for a check.' It also states the ordering ('newest first') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on status-change history rather than listing checks or fetching a single 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 gives clear context: use this when you need a check's status changes with optional time filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the operation is distinct enough from list_checks and get_check that the intended use is evident.

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