Run a single agent-readiness check

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

Without annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions return values (status, evidence, fix recommendation) but does not state behavioral traits like idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. The nature of a 'check' implies read-only, but not explicitly.

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 that are all necessary and front-loaded: verb and resource, then usage hint, then return summary. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input guidance, valid IDs source, and output shape, making it complete for agent invocation.

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 value by providing concrete examples of check_id values and directing users to list_checks for valid IDs, which is helpful beyond the schema's description.

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 states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'one specific agent-readiness check', with examples of check IDs. It distinguishes from siblings by implying that list_checks provides valid IDs and this tool runs one specific check, contrasting with a potential bulk scan like scan_site.

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?

The description advises using list_checks for valid check IDs, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_site or get_aso_framework, nor provide exclusion criteria.

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