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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the return value (monitor_id + secret), the heartbeat mechanism, the alerting condition (period + grace), alert targets (Discord/HTTPS webhook and/or email), alert contents (state capsule and resume link), and tier-based limits. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 dense and every sentence carries useful information. It is not overlong. However, it opens with tier/pricing information ('FREE... / Gateway key...') rather than the primary action, which slightly hurts front-loading. The core purpose appears in the second sentence, making the structure less immediately scannable.

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 description is quite complete for a register tool with no output schema: it explains the expected return values (monitor_id + secret), the operational flow, and alert behavior. Minor gaps remain, such as authentication requirements, behavior when no alert target is provided, and whether monitor names must be unique. These do not prevent correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining how period_minutes and grace_minutes interact in the monitoring lifecycle ('agent calls heartbeat every period_minutes', 'If heartbeats stop for period + grace, the alert target... is notified'). This contextual relationship goes beyond the isolated schema field descriptions.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Register an agent or scheduled job to be watched.' It also explains the resulting workflow (monitor_id + secret, heartbeat calls, alerting). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like delete_monitor, heartbeat, and fetch_capsule.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to start watching an agent or scheduled job. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The usage context is strong but lacks the explicit exclusion/alternative guidance that would make it a 5.

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