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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing that it returns type-specific fields (HTTP status codes, port/protocol, expiry dates) that the list view omits, which is valuable for expected side effects on response content.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, then provides usage context. No redundant phrasing or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the single parameter, rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and additional behavioral detail (type-specific fields) sufficiently. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) with full schema description ('Monitor id, as returned by list_monitors.'). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it reads a single monitor in full, including configuration, status, and type-specific details omitted by the list view. It distinguishes from list_monitors and other monitor tools by specifying exactly what extra information it returns.

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 explicitly says to use it after list_monitors when the answer depends on how the check is configured, giving concrete examples like timeout tightness or watched port. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies the alternative.

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