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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive/safe profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context: monitors are added per current plan, extra monitors (uptime, SSL, errors, maintenance mode, structure) are included, and before ownership is proven the monitors are created but do not run on schedule yet. That scheduleStarts caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior worth disclosing.

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-loaded with the onboarding framing, then the goal list, then the schedule caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical 'plus uptime, SSL, errors, maintenance mode and structure' is slightly list-heavy but informative.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies plan scoping, the set of monitors created, and the pre-ownership scheduling limitation. It stops short of noting auth requirements or what the response returns, but the core calling context is present.

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 enriches the enum values beyond the schema by explaining what each goal covers (flows = checkout and sign-in, compliance = accessibility today). siteId gains no additional meaning, keeping this below a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource — pick goals and Relvato adds the covering monitors — and frames itself as 'the onboarding shortcut', which separates it from granular siblings like add_checks or add_custom_check. The goal enumeration makes the scope concrete, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 onboarding shortcut' implies the usage context (initial setup), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no sibling like add_checks is named as the alternative for non-onboarding cases. Usage must be inferred.

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