Get check result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial beyond that: the endpoint used (GET /checks/{id}?expand=response), beta status of responses, type-specific availability, and exactly which sensitive fields appear only with include_contact_details while images/selfie/PDF are never returned.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then layers endpoint, beta caveat, and privacy behavior. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure and heavy parentheticals could be broken up for easier scanning.

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 no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of describing return shape (type, status, response, per-report status/result, verification breakdown) and data-access caveats, so an agent knows what it will receive.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's mention of include_contact_details largely mirrors the schema text. The privacy framing adds mild value but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 names the resource ('one check by ID'), its origin ('from a record's check steps'), and the payload returned (type, status, response with per-report status/result and verification breakdown). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_record or get_client.

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?

It establishes the context that check IDs come from a record's check steps, implying get_record precedes this call, and notes that responses are beta so other check types may return 'not yet available'. It lacks an explicit when-not or named alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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