list_acc_checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ACC-plugin dependency, a useful behavioral constraint, but says nothing about pagination, default result size behavior, or what a 'check definition' contains.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

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-only, two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. It stops short of explaining what an ACC check definition is or how results are ordered/paged, leaving minor gaps.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'query' documented inline including the default of 25. The description adds no additional meaning about query syntax or filtering fields, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List ACC check definitions'), which distinguishes it from the nearby list_acc_agents and list_acc_policies siblings by resource. It doesn't explicitly call out those alternatives, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

'Requires the ACC plugin' is a genuine prerequisite that tells an agent when the call will fail, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over list_acc_agents or list_acc_policies, nor on the intended workflow after listing definitions.

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