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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds useful context: checks start immediately, tcp uses host:port URL, and inverted enables exposure monitoring. These details go beyond what annotations 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the schema and output schema cover parameter details and return values, the description is complete enough. It highlights key behavioral aspects (immediate start, exposure monitoring) but omits guidance on other parameters like regions or expected_status_codes, though these are documented in the schema.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's mention of types and inverted adds minimal new meaning, mostly rephrasing the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new uptime monitor, which is a specific verb and resource. It also lists the supported monitor types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_monitor or pause_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 naming the action and notes that checks start immediately, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or describe when not to use this tool. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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