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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing action ('List... Returns...'), which is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, result ordering behavior, or whether failed/running jobs are included, so it adds only basic behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful detail about returning run history, though it slightly repeats 'for a monitor,' preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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?

This is a simple single-required-parameter listing operation with a full output schema and fully documented parameters. The description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly distinguishing itself from list_user_jobs, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents monitor_id, sort, and api_key. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation for high 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all jobs spawned by a monitor' and clarifies the return value as 'the history of scheduled runs.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_monitors (which lists monitors) and list_user_jobs (which lists user-level jobs) without needing to inspect the 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?

The description establishes a clear context: use this tool when you need the jobs associated with a specific monitor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the wording 'all jobs spawned by a monitor' gives enough situational guidance to route an agent correctly.

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