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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result ordering (newest first), a hard page size cap of 50, and the cursor-follow pattern for retrieval. It does not describe what a monitor record contains, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope and ordering first, then pagination mechanics, then the optional expansion. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the response shape (paged list capped at 50 with a nextCursor) and how include enriches results. For a simple three-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the monitor object's own fields are left unstated, which is reasonable to omit.

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 all three parameters (project_id, cursor, include) are already documented in the schema, including the include whitelist. The description reinforces the include semantics ('load the parent project chain') and cursor flow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 the monitors') plus scope ('configured for a project') and ordering ('newest first'). The resource noun 'monitors' cleanly separates it from the many list-*-analytics and list-prompts siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives operational usage guidance for pagination ('follow nextCursor', 'omit cursor on the first call') and for the optional include expansion, which tells the agent how to call it. It stops short of any when-to-use-vs-alternative statement, e.g. when to prefer this over list-monitor-analytics-tool, so selection guidance is only implied by the project scoping.

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