List Check-Ins

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world data, the description specifies the return format options ('markdown' | 'json'), error handling behavior ('Returns "Error: ..." if the request fails'), and the specific fields included in results ('name, security code, kind, and timestamps'). This enhances the agent's understanding of how to interpret outputs.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Error handling. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. While efficient, the repetition of parameter information that's already in the schema could be considered slightly redundant, preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, parameters, return format options, error handling, and result fields. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidelines compared to sibling tools, but overall it gives the agent sufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description repeats the parameter information in the 'Args' section but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description provides a convenient summary.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('check-in records in Planning Center Check-Ins'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pco_list_checkin_events' and 'pco_list_checkin_locations' by focusing specifically on check-in records rather than events or locations.

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 description implies usage through the parameter descriptions (date filtering, pagination, output format), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better for related tasks like listing check-in events or locations.

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