Run check now

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial extras: the run "can open or resolve an incident like any scheduled run" (a real side effect), rate limiting per check and per organization, the required mcp scope with mcp:read refused, and the minimum organization role.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, side effects, limits, return shape, and auth. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the inline return-shape literal is partly redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, and the single unbroken block is less scannable than it could be.

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 non-idempotent action with incident side effects, the description covers the critical unknowns: side effects, rate limits, auth/scope requirements, and how to retrieve the eventual outcome. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 explains the UID-or-slug identifier format with examples. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, 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?

Starts with a specific verb, resource, and scope: "Run a check once, now, in every region, instead of waiting for its next period." This clearly separates it from sibling scheduling/CRUD tools (create_check, update_check, list_checks) and from read-only outcome tools.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions ("right after a fix, or on a freshly created check") and routes the agent to alternatives for reading the outcome: "read the outcome with diagnose_check or list_results (a result with periodStart >= requestedAt)." Both when-to-use and where-to-go-next are given.

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