list_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no scan is required, no quota is spent, and the approximate size (~45 items). It doesn't discuss pagination or response format, but that's a minor gap for a static list tool.

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?

The English sentence is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then a key behavioral guarantee. The Russian sentence is a useful localized duplicate of the same information, but it adds length without new content, which slightly hurts conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description helpfully lists the returned fields and the approximate count. It's adequate for a zero-parameter list tool, though it could mention whether results are paginated or if the list is subject to change beyond the '~45' hint.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context that the returned items include id, name, category, law article, and max fine, which helps set expectations even though there's no input to document.

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 (List) and resource (compliance checks), plus the exact fields returned (id, name, category, law article, max fine). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_scans and scan_site, which are about scans, not the static check catalog.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: BEFORE writing site code for the Russian market to build compliant-from-start, or to explain what will be verified. It also states it requires no scan and spends no quota, which differentiates it from the scan_* siblings.

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