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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: a five-check cap, newest-first ordering, the exact returned fields, and the empty-list result for a monitor with no checks.

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 tight sentences with the resource and ordering front-loaded, followed by return details and the empty-result case. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the important return shape, limit, ordering, and empty-list behavior. A minor gap is that it does not state what happens when the monitor is missing or deleted, though 'non-deleted' implies valid-monitor scope.

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%, and the single monitorExternalId parameter is fully documented in the schema as an external monitor GUID from MonitorList or MonitorListRecent. The description adds only scope (non-deleted monitor) but no further meaning to the parameter itself.

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 (Get), resource (up to five actual checks), and scope (for a non-deleted monitor in the authenticated organization), with ordering (newest first). The focus on checks distinguishes it from sibling monitor-listing and metrics tools.

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 implies usage by specifying the monitor scope and latest checks, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like monitor_metrics or monitor_get, nor does it list exclusions.

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