get_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation beyond the verb 'Fetch', no permission requirements, no error behavior for a missing id, and no sense of cost or rate limits. 'Full check card' hints that the complete object is returned but does not define it.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter lookup.

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 single-id read with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape and failure modes. The absence of annotations or an output schema means a little more context would have been cheap and useful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. 'By id' does clarify that the id selects the check, adding meaning beyond the bare 'string' type, but gives no format, prefix, or source for the id.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('check card'), and scope ('one ... by id'), which is enough to distinguish it from the plural sibling search_checks. It stops short of explicitly naming search_checks as the alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The only implied guidance is that you must already have an id, which is derived from the schema rather than the description.

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