list_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-only listing operation with optional filtering, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or whether the response includes last results by default, leaving some behavioral detail to the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, filters are summarized compactly, and the alternative tool is mentioned in a single closing sentence.

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 list tool with no required parameters and a well-documented schema, the description covers selection and routing adequately. It lacks an explicit statement about the return shape or pagination, but the schema covers the pagination cursor and the sibling routing covers the main alternative use case.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description adds a concise summary of the main filter dimensions (name/slug, labels, check group) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like limit, cursor, or with.

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 and resource: 'List monitoring checks for the organization', and enumerates the available filters (name/slug substring, labels, check group). It also distinguishes itself from diagnose_check, making it clear this is a fleet-browsing tool rather than a single-check health tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('browsing or filtering a fleet of checks') and names an alternative for a different use case ('To investigate a single check's current health, use diagnose_check instead'). This gives the agent actionable routing guidance.

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