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

The annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely new context: an expected token cost ('About 3440 tokens for 20 postings') and a staleness warning ('a posting can be old while still hiring'). It doesn't describe pagination behavior beyond 'a page', but the output schema presumably covers the return shape.

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 labeled lines (Purpose, When, Cost) front-load the decisions an agent must make, and each sentence carries information: scope, trigger, default filter, staleness caveat, and cost. There is no 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?

Purpose, trigger, default filtering, data-staleness caveat, and a token budget are all present, and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly 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 all three parameters, including the state enum and page bounds, are already documented in the schema. The description restates the default of the state filter but adds no syntax, bounds, or edge-case meaning beyond that. A 3 is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Show one monitor with its counts and a page of the postings it collected.' That clearly distinguishes the tool from monitor_list, which only lists monitors, and the monitorId parameter points back to monitor_list. It never names a sibling tool or states an exclusion, so it doesn't reach the level of a 5.

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 'When:' line gives explicit triggers: the user asks what a monitor found, or wants to see postings they already decided on. It also states the behavior by default—postings the user has not decided on yet—which helps the agent choose whether to pass state. It doesn't say when not to use this tool or which alternative handles adjacent needs, such as monitor_decide or job_postings_search.

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