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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'report' aligns with that. It adds the public API endpoint for reference but does not discuss data freshness, rate limits, or whether data is real-time. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the core purpose and the second gives the API endpoint. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

The parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the output type (aggregated report) and scope (across checks and groups). No output schema exists, so the description compensates by indicating report contents. It could mention pagination or limits, but for a read-only report this is sufficient.

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 each parameter having a description (to, from, timezone, quickRange, granularity, filterByTags). The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states it provides aggregated availability/performance/SLA reports across checks and groups, with the specific API endpoint. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that focus on individual checks or lists.

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 use for aggregated overview reporting across checks/groups. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the mention of 'across checks and groups' sets expectations versus single-check tools. Sibling tools like checkly_get_check or checkly_list_checks are for different granularity.

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