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

Annotations already indicate the operation is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that checks resume immediately. It does not contradict annotations, though it could mention behavior if the monitor is already running.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and outcome. Every word 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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could explicitly state the prerequisite that the monitor must be paused, but this is already implied by the phrase 'paused monitor'.

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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter as 'Monitor ID', so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With high schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool resumes a paused monitor, using a specific verb and target resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pause_monitor. The phrase 'checks start again immediately' also clarifies the expected effect.

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 by stating that this tool operates on a paused monitor, implying the correct scenario for use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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