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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that only persistent exact-contract monitors and their saved check state are returned, but it does not add auth, rate-limit, pagination, or other behavioral context beyond that scope. With an output schema present, return values need not be described.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every component (scope, artifact) earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description gives enough to call it correctly. No essential context 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the empty schema and 100% description coverage mean no parameter semantics need explaining. The description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 (List) and resource (asset monitors), plus a scope qualifier (only your persistent exact-contract monitors) and the returned artifact (saved check state). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_asset_monitor, create_asset_monitor, and stop_asset_monitor.

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 usage by saying it lists monitors, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and does not point to check_asset_monitor or other siblings as alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration tool rather than a status-check tool.

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