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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: checks run 'now and on a schedule', team alerts are triggered on readiness changes, and the action consumes a plan site slot. This goes beyond the structural annotations without contradicting them.

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 each earn their place: first states the action and its effects, second gives usage direction, third covers resource and prerequisite. Front-loaded with the core purpose; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scheduling behavior, alerting, usage context, account requirement, and slot consumption. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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% and the single url parameter is already well-described in the schema (domain or URL, monitoring per site, WebMCP pages on dashboard). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with 'Start monitoring a site' – a specific verb and resource – and expands on what that entails: checks against UCP, WebMCP and Access now and on a schedule, plus alerts. It also contrasts with a 'one-off check', distinguishing it from the sibling check_site without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when someone wants ongoing monitoring rather than a one-off check, or asks to be told when their site breaks for agents.' It also gives a prerequisite ('Requires a connected Orbilo account') and an operational constraint ('Uses one of the plan's site slots'), giving clear go/no-go signals.

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