Check Setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Changes nothing.' It earns credit beyond the annotations by disclosing that it both detects problems and prescribes fixes ('say how to fix what isn't') and by scoping the inspected state precisely.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a scannable inventory of checks, then two short directive sentences. The middle list is long but every item is a distinct diagnostic surface, so it earns its space.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names what is checked, promises remediation guidance, and states side-effect behavior. It does not describe the shape of the report it returns, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents 'offline' ('Skip checks that call Notion.'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check that the server is set up and working') and enumerates the exact surfaces it inspects, from settings and token to the chart renderer and automation runs. It does not differentiate itself from a sibling like notion_capabilities, which also concerns the integration's capabilities, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Run it first when something doesn't work' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'Changes nothing' signals it is safe to run speculatively. It does not name a when-not case or an alternative sibling, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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