run_check

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation but say nothing about what it does. The description adds real value: a check normally records a result, while supplying region turns it into a one-off probe from that region with nothing recorded. That behavioral distinction is the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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, tightly front-loaded with the default behavior first and the region variant second. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core side effect and the important region exception. It could still note whether the call is synchronous or how the returned result is shaped in the region mode, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is 75%, and the schema's `region` property has no description at all. The description compensates by defining region as an id from list_regions and explaining its effect, and the schema already covers id, project, and workspace.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Run a check for a monitor right now') plus the side effect (records the result). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_monitor or create_monitor, which is a minor gap given no direct sibling performs this action.

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?

'Right now' implies the on-demand-trigger use case versus scheduled checks, and the region clause covers a conditional mode. However, it never states when not to use it or names an alternative tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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