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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying a write operation. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the act of creation – no side effects, duplicate handling, or authorization requirements. Since annotations exist, the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

One 17-word sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No filler; every phrase earns its place. This is appropriately sized for a concise summary.

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?

Despite 20 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It covers required fields and a hint about port/dns, but doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how to select among the many optional parameters. Given the tool's complexity, the description leaves significant gaps.

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 each of the 20 parameters is already documented. The description adds a small grouping hint (port for port checks, dns_* for DNS checks) which slightly helps, but doesn't go beyond schema explanations like 'required when protocol is port'. Baseline 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 opens with 'Create a new monitor', a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_monitor, pause_monitor, and create_outage. It also notes required name+url, reinforcing the creation action.

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?

It says 'Requires name+url' and instructs to add 'port' for port checks and 'dns_*' for DNS checks, giving some usage context. But it doesn't explicitly say when to use create_monitor vs update_monitor or other alternatives, and doesn't mention exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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