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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description doesn't need to restate it. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are limited to the authenticated organization, but says nothing about pagination metadata, default ordering, or whether deleted monitors appear.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the filter caveat. The trailing phrase "or paginate" is slightly ungrammatical and mixes a filter list with an unrelated pagination note, but there is no padding.

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?

This is a simple list tool with rich annotations and fully documented params, so the bar is low. Still, with no output schema the description gives no hint about the shape of the returned monitor objects or pagination envelope, and it omits the existence of a separate deleted-monitors listing, which is the most likely source of caller error.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description including the enum-like value lists for type and status, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that status, type, and pagination filters exist, adding no format or interaction detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List monitors") plus the scope ("in the authenticated organization"), which clearly separates it from vs_monitors_get. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named vs_monitors_list_deleted sibling, which is the one case where an agent could easily pick wrong.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: use this to enumerate monitors, use vs_monitors_get for one. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to vs_monitors_list_deleted for the deleted case, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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