Run a single agent-readiness check

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

No annotations exist; the description carries full burden. It discloses return values ('status, evidence, and a fix recommendation') and a default behavior ('omits raw remote artifacts by default'), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads purpose, then provides usage guidance, then lists output and behavior. Every sentence serves a distinct function.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return structure adequately. It also references list_checks for valid IDs. Missing minor details like whether the operation is synchronous, but sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for url and check_id; it only provides examples, which are already implied by the pattern.

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 clearly names the action ('Run one specific agent-readiness check'), identifies the resource ('a site'), provides concrete examples of check IDs, and distinguishes from siblings like scan_site and get_fix_plan.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('targeted validation after making a fix or when debugging one signal'), when not to use it ('use scan_site for the complete ASO Score and get_fix_plan for a prioritized remediation roadmap'), and a prerequisite action ('Use list_checks first').

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