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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds that the monitor is not deleted, history/config survive, and it reports neither up nor down while paused. This enriches beyond the annotations.

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 concise, three sentences, each adding value: what it does, when to use it, and behavioral nuance. No fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavior. The output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered there. It's complete enough.

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 schema fully describes the 'id' parameter (100% coverage) with a clear description. The tool description doesn't add much beyond that, but since schema coverage is high, baseline 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 stops checking a monitor without deleting it, while preserving history and configuration. It distinguishes itself from delete_monitor and resume_monitor by explicitly mentioning these sibling tools.

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?

It provides context for use around planned maintenance to avoid downtime affecting uptime figures or triggering alerts. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use, but the context implies use cases. Sibling tools are listed, giving alternatives.

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