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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool stops scheduled runs and implies reversibility ('re-enabled later'), but does not disclose idempotency (behavior if already disabled) or any permissions needed. Adequate for a simple toggle, but could be more precise.

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 sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 only 2 parameters and no nested objects. The description covers the core functionality. An output schema exists (not shown) but the description doesn't mention it; however, that is not required. Slightly incomplete for an agent expecting return value details.

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%, so parameters are fully described structurally. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for either 'monitor_id' or 'api_key'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 disables a monitor to stop its scheduled runs. It uses a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'enable_monitor' (re-enable) and 'delete_monitor' (permanent deletion).

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 clear usage context: stop scheduled runs. It also mentions re-enabling with 'enable_monitor', guiding the agent on when not to use (if permanent stop is desired, use delete instead). However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like 'delete_monitor'.

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