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 states the tool 'retrieves' results, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It does mention the return structure (run_info, records, all_records), which adds some transparency, but lacks explicit 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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second details the return fields. The content is front-loaded and there is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and return fields. However, it lacks any mention of when to choose this over similar sibling tools like pull_results or pull_monitor_csv, leaving a gap in agent decision-making.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning, examples, or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so it contributes nothing extra for the parameters.

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 action ('Retrieve the latest results from a monitor') and specifies the return fields (run_info, records, all_records). It is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pull_results or pull_monitor_csv, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pull_results or pull_monitor_csv. The description does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or context that would help an agent 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.