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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned monitor fields (type, target, state, last result), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or error behavior for this read operation.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no redundant or filler text, and the resource and returned fields are 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool, it covers the resource, scope, and returned fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it still leaves out practical details such as pagination and when the tool should be chosen over siblings.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and explains that pageId is the page id from list_pages. The description's 'on a page' reinforces that parameter but adds no new syntax, format, or source details beyond 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?

The description identifies the resource (monitors), the scope (on a page), and the returned fields, so an agent can tell it is a monitor-listing tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_incidents or get_status, and it omits an explicit verb, but the purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The required pageId comes from list_pages only in the schema, not in the description.

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