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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: asynchronous authoring latency ('a minute or two'), the read-only-by-default run mode, the interactive opt-in that enables clicking/typing, plan-gating, and quota consumption against the active-monitor limit.

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?

Front-loads the core idea in the first sentence and packs latency, status flow, behavior and gating into a compact block. The status-lifecycle sentence is information-dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries routing or behavioral information rather than filler.

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 an async, plan-gated creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: input expectation, latency expectation, the status machine with the response text to surface to the user, and the quota/plan constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and then correctly continue is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive value for the two non-obvious flags: 'interactive: true lets it click and type (search, filters, forms)' and the read-only default, plus the WordPress-specific meaning of authenticated. The url/goal/name semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource ('Create a custom monitor') and goes further by explaining the mechanism: a plain-language goal that Relvato's AI turns into a monitor. The contrast with the sibling add_checks (predefined checks) is clear from 'describe in plain words what to verify' and the AI-authored authoring flow.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the follow-up: 'Follow it with get_check', then names the exact next tool for each returned status (approve_custom_check for proposed, reauthor_custom_check for needs-input, advice for failed). This is a full when/when-next routing map rather than implied usage.

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