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

Despite existing readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it performs one statusRead for a complete account snapshot even when empty, unavailable snapshots fail, stopped monitors are not listed but their history remains readable, no credits are charged, and the status output is not a recovery or financial conclusion. It also documents authentication via OAuth or API key. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, followed by concise behavioral notes. It is one dense paragraph rather than a list, but nearly every clause adds useful information and nothing is obviously redundant.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and explains account snapshot behavior, failure conditions, listing scope, cost, authentication, and status limitations. An agent has enough context to call and interpret 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description appropriately focuses on output fields rather than input semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List your active monitors', then enumerates the exact fields returned (id, url, question, cadence, next scheduled run, latest answer, runStatus). It also scopes the result to active monitors and explicitly excludes stopped monitors, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like contrie_unwatch and contrie_watch.

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 supplies context (active-only scope, authentication requirements, no credit charge) but never names alternative tools or states when to use this tool versus siblings like contrie_account, contrie_read, or contrie_search. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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