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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: paid once, $18 cost, no refunds, cancel any time, 30-day retention, the monitor_id as the only recoverable credential, and that each run flags changed domains. This is comprehensive and beyond what any annotation would typically provide.

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 description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently packs cost, lifecycle, and credential details. There is zero fluff; every clause earns its place, making it both concise and information-dense.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers the entire workflow: the first run returns the monitor_id, subsequent runs are fetched via status, and cancellation is possible. It also explains data retention. An agent has all necessary information to invoke and manage the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already documented. The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters interrelate (e.g., 'for one prompt and 1 to 10 target domains' and 'daily or weekly'), enriching the schema's flat definitions with usage context.

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 states a specific action ('Buys a monitor') and the exact resource (30 recurring runs of citation_tracker_check) with clear parameters (one prompt, 1-10 target domains, daily/weekly). It distinguishes this from the 7-run sibling by explicitly naming the run count and mentions later retrieval via monitor_status, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: it's for a 30-run recurring monitor, and it tells the agent how to consume results (monitor_status) and stop (monitor_cancel). It doesn't explicitly contrast with citation_tracker_monitor_7, but the run-count difference is implicit, so an agent can infer the choice.

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