Get pull request checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying exclusions (no watching, log download, workflow dispatch, approval, or GitHub write) and emphasizing the 'bounded' and 'structured' nature of the result, which goes beyond the raw annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose immediately ('Read-only: return...') and then enumerate exclusions without redundancy. Every word earns its place, matching the efficiency of the top-tier example.

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 read-only getter with a rich output schema and complete annotations, the description sufficiently covers the necessary context. It clarifies the exact scope (one PR head revision) and the absence of side effects. A minor gap is the lack of detail about return value structure, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this.

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% (all parameters have meaningful schema descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, such as the fact that 'number' is a positive PR number or that max_checks is capped.

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 uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('bounded structured summary of CI checks for one exact pull-request head revision'), precisely conveying the tool's function. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not do (watching, log download, workflow dispatch, approval), which is useful for disambiguation in the large sibling set.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for a read-only, scoped summary of CI checks, and explicitly states what it does not perform (no watching, logs, dispatch, approval, writes), which covers when-not-to-use. However, it does not name any specific alternative tool, unlike the high-scoring example that mentions 'use search_calls_extensive instead.'

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