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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) only set a partial safety profile; the description adds real side effects ('every region sends one real request to the monitored endpoint'), state guarantees ('Nothing is stored... no alert is sent'), a rate limit with its exact behavior ('One run per monitor per 60 s: a second call... returns the previous result and its age'), a role requirement, and a ~25 s timeout with pending handling.

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 return shape and timeout are front-loaded, then side effects, then usage, then rate limit, then exclusions. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational weight; it is a long single paragraph, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return burden and does so thoroughly (per-region ok, status, ms, error, failure layer, phase timings, pending, verdict). With a single fully-documented parameter and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single uuid parameter, and the schema already documents it as the Monitor UUID ("mon_…"). The description implies the check runs against 'the monitor' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Run the monitor's check') plus resource and scope ('from each of its regions'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_browser_run, healthchecks and servers. An agent can tell it apart from get_outage_checks and get_browser_run without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('see whether an ongoing incident still fails, and where, or to confirm a fix') and explicit exclusions with alternatives ('Not for browser checks (see get_browser_run), healthchecks (hc_) or servers (agt_)'). Nothing is left to inference.

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