Get check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the accepted identifier forms (UUID or unique_key from read-only API keys) and the scope of returned fields, which goes beyond the structured 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 sentences with no filler. The action and resource scope are front-loaded, and the identifier clarification is placed second without redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read operation with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential decision points: what is fetched and which identifier forms are accepted. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the single parameter. The description repeats the identifier guidance found in the schema, adding no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetches') and a specific resource ('one check'), and clarifies scope by noting the response includes all fields, descriptions, and keyword filters. The singular 'one check' distinguishes it from list_checks and other siblings without needing to open schemas.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single check, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_checks for multiple checks or update_check for modifications. An agent can infer when to use this tool from the phrase 'one check,' but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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