List checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: newest-state-first ordering, project-scoped results due to API key scoping, and omission of descriptions. It does not describe pagination, but output schema and parameter docs cover most remaining details.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the most important behavior is front-loaded. The final sentence earns its place by preventing a likely misuse (expecting descriptions) and pointing to the correct sibling.

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 list operation with all parameters optional and fully documented, plus a rich output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and the key alternative. Nothing necessary for correct tool selection or invocation is missing.

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%, so the parameter meaning is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds little about the parameters, which is acceptable because the schema already carries that burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the checks in the project the API key belongs to, newest state first.' It adds ordering and project-scope information, and distinguishes itself from get_check by noting that descriptions are omitted.

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?

It clearly states what the tool returns and explicitly routes to get_check when descriptions are needed: 'Descriptions are omitted here — call get_check for one.' This gives the agent an explicit when-not-to-use signal and a named alternative.

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