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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the write side effect ('save the latest evidence'), the return value ('next scheduled check'), and idempotency gating of provider work. This is consistent with the non-read-only annotation and goes beyond it.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the caveat. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is that the required taskId is never described, which for a single-param tool is the one thing an agent would want clarified.

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?

The single required parameter taskId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it – it only refers obliquely to 'an owned monitor'. With a required param undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check an owned monitor') and adds the meaningful scope 'when its poll is due', plus the side effects (save evidence, return next check). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_asset_monitors or create_asset_monitor, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('when its poll is due') and an important behavioral caveat ('Repeated calls before due time do not trigger provider work'). However, it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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