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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by describing the payload (status, issues, performance metrics), the dual list/detail mode, and a docs link. It does not mention pagination behavior or the default limit, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, then the mode switch, then the entry-point guidance, ending with a reference link. Every sentence earns its place with 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 explained. Combined with full schema coverage, covered annotations, and explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the detail mode, 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description notes that monitor_id switches the call into a single-monitor detail mode, which is useful context, but it largely restates the schema's own wording for that parameter and adds nothing for limit, search, or only_with_issues.

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 (search/list) and resource (the team's monitors), and disambiguates the term by defining monitors as 'the websites, hosts and services Oh Dear watches, also called sites.' It also enumerates what comes back (up/down status, open issues, performance metrics), so an agent can tell it apart from the many get_* siblings.

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?

'Start here when you need a monitor ID for another tool' gives explicit entry-point guidance, and 'Pass monitor_id to fetch the full detail for one monitor' explains the second mode of use. It does not name any competing sibling (e.g. get_uptime_statistics, get_check_summary) as an alternative, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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