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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses per-run credit charges (1/3/8/15 plus 2 when rendered), hourly-run cost implications, plan caps on active monitors, schedule slippage, webhook POST with X-Contrie-Signature and one-time secret return, and history recording of before/after with evidence status and field diff. The non-idempotency warning is consistent with idempotentHint=false, so no contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries substantive information (billing, schedule, webhook, caps, auth, idempotency). It is dense and somewhat run-on, but there is little dead weight to cut.

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 5-parameter, non-idempotent, authenticated, metered creation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth method (OAuth or API key header), cost model, limits, side effects, webhook signing, and retry hazard — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 the schema already documents url, every, schema, extract, and webhookUrl. The description only restates the 'every' minimum and slot-delay behavior rather than adding new semantics for any parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Watch one public web page for one question and be told when the answer changes.' The 'one page / one question' framing plus the baseline-then-schedule mechanic clearly separates it from contrie_monitors (listing), contrie_unwatch (removal), and contrie_extract (one-off).

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?

Gives clear operating context — creation is not idempotent and the agent should list existing monitors before retrying a lost response — which implicitly routes to the contrie_monitors sibling. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-selection guidance (e.g., when to prefer contrie_extract over monitoring).

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