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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds real semantic context about what a scan is and that results include asset failures, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or retention that the agent might need.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, roughly 30 words total. The trailing sentence on output contents ("Shows when monitoring last checked, what it found, and any asset failures") borders on duplicating the output schema, but it is brief and not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The definition plus a fully documented schema is enough to call the tool correctly; only the absence of usage routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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% with three well-documented parameters (page, since, monitor_id), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying monitor scoping, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List monitoring scans") and goes further by defining what a scan is ("one kind-scoped check of a monitor's sources (domains, trademarks or apps)"), which separates the concept from list_matches or list_monitors. It never explicitly names a sibling tool or states which one to prefer, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of monitor_id and since filters suggests when to narrow results, but the description gives no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., list_monitors for monitor inventory, list_matches for findings). An agent must infer the routing itself.

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