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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context: defaulting to the last 7 days, per-Monitor and per-day aggregates, times in seconds, and a performance score range of 0-100. It could disclose more about edge cases or output shape, but the added context is solid.

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?

Three focused sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose and key output semantics; the second routes to alternatives; the third is a concise prerequisite for interpretation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (aggregates, trends, units, score range), the defaults, related drill-down tools, and a required prerequisite reading step. This is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 covers since and until with ISO-8601 descriptions, and the tool description adds period defaults. projectId lacks a schema description but is clearly implied by 'for a project'. The description also frames since/until meaningfully as the period for the aggregate health picture, which helps the agent understand the parameters' role.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Monitoring Summary'), and scope ('for a project: the aggregate health picture across its Monitors over a period'). It differentiates this aggregate tool from the more granular siblings by explicitly naming list_incidents and list_monitor_cycles as drill-down alternatives.

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 gives clear direction: use this tool for an aggregate monitoring health picture, and 'Drill down instead of asking for more' with specific sibling tools. It also instructs reading the 'monitoring' topic before interpreting results, which helps the agent use the output correctly. This is explicit usage guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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