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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's role is limited. It adds context on returned data (statuses, frequency, alert settings) and the API endpoint, which is helpful but not critical beyond the annotation.

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 and a brief API reference, front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous words.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, the description adds return field context (status, frequency, alert settings) and suggests it as a discovery tool. It lacks output schema but compensates with those details. Pagination and filtering are already in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema; it only mentions return fields, not input semantics.

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 tool lists uptime monitors with specific attributes (status, check frequency, alert settings) and position as a first call for discovery. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_monitor (single) and list_heartbeats, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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 includes 'Good first call to discover what is being monitored,' which implies a starting point, but does not state when not to use it or explicitly mention alternatives like get_monitor for detailed views or list_heartbeats for heartbeats.

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