Get a complete design checklist

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 adds that the response includes all sub-elements and that a qualified identifier is preferred, hinting at resolution behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with ambiguous identifiers, not-found cases, or whether responses are paginated — minor gaps given the good annotation coverage.

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: the first states the core function and return contents; the second gives a practical input tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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, idempotent single-get tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the caller will receive (all checklist components) and how to identify the target (qualified identifier). It could go further by stating error behavior or what happens if the checklist doesn't exist, but those are not critical given the simple context and strong annotations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds an explicit example ('mobile/checkout') and advises preferring a qualified identifier, which clarifies the format and resolution preference beyond the schema's generic 'UUID, slug, or qualified category/slug identifier.' This elevates the score.

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 'Return one complete checklist' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the full scope of what's included (every item, suggestion, step, image URL, related checklist, collection, attribution). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_checklists (which likely returns summaries) and search_checklists (which finds checklists).

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 only guidance is 'Prefer a qualified identifier such as mobile/checkout,' which is about input format, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There's no explicit mention of when to use get_checklist vs list_checklists or search_checklists, though it's implied that you use this when you need the full content of a single checklist.

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