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

Annotations only mark it as a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive action; the description adds substantial context: it runs in a cloud browser, takes one to two minutes, consumes plan credits with a concrete cost table for datasets, and reports why it failed to start (e.g. insufficient credits). That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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 primary use case and timing are front-loaded, and the dataset caveat is appended logically. There is slight redundancy between 'Counts against the plan like any check' and the later credit breakdown, and the dataset sentence is dense, but no sentence 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 single-parameter trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers duration, cost, preconditions, failure signaling, and where to read results. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 uuid parameter is already documented as coming from list_monitors. The description still adds value by revealing that the same field also accepts a dataset uuid from list_datasets, changing what the call does and its cost profile.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: run an active monitor's page check immediately rather than on schedule. It also carves out the dataset variant, so an agent can tell this apart from pause_monitor, resume_monitor, or get_latest_result.

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?

It states explicitly when to use it (instead of waiting for the schedule), a prerequisite (resume a paused monitor first), and the follow-up tools for reading output (get_latest_result, get_dataset_rows, get_dataset_changes). Alternatives and conditions are named rather than implied.

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