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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the write scope requirement, plan quota error condition, and that it returns the created asset. This helps the agent understand consequences and prerequisites, though it doesn't cover duplicate handling or exact error semantics.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by required inputs, optional inputs, and caveats. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value ('Returns the created asset'), which is helpful. It covers required inputs, optional settings, authentication, and error conditions. Missing are details on duplicate handling or idempotency, but these are not critical for a create tool and annotations already address mutation behavior. Overall, it is complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds a small amount of semantic value by mentioning 'optionally a label and which checks to enable', which aggregates the check-related booleans, but it does not provide details beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start monitoring a new asset' in the user's Merlonix account. The verb 'start monitoring' is specific and the resource is a new asset (website/domain). It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_asset, delete_asset, and list_my_assets by focusing on creation.

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 provides concrete usage context: require hostname and asset_type, optionally a label and checks. It also gives important preconditions: 'Requires an API key with write scope' and 'Subject to your plan asset quota (a full or non-paying plan returns an error)'. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide when to call this tool.

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