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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the domain fact that deleted monitors are retained in a restorable state, but says nothing about the retention window, result volume, or pagination behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the recovery-relevant qualifier appended. Nothing is wasted and nothing needed for selection is buried.

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 zero-param read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is close to sufficient, but it leaves open how far back 'recently' extends and whether returned items can be fed directly into vs_monitors_restore. Those gaps are small but real for the restore workflow.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to supply; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals the tool takes no filters despite 'recently' implying a time window.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('recently deleted monitors'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling vs_monitors_list (active monitors). It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 clause 'that can still be restored' implies the tool is a precursor to vs_monitors_restore, but no alternative or explicit when-to-use condition is given. An agent must infer that vs_monitors_list is for live monitors and this one for soft-deleted ones.

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