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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add context. It does: folder matching is exact unless recursive is set, recursive nests subfolders, and include="uptime" augments each record with computed uptime/response-time fields. No mention of pagination totals or rate limits, but the added semantics are useful.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then filtering semantics, then the include augmentation. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 six-parameter, all-optional listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and what extra fields appear. It never touches pagination behavior or the overall result shape, which is the only remaining gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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%, so the schema already documents page, limit, folder, status, include, and recursive. The description's parameter statements (folder, recursive, include) largely restate what the schema says, adding little beyond a readable summary, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List monitored checks") plus the payload fields returned ("current status and folder"), which cleanly separates it from the singular sibling get_check and the mutating create_check/delete_check/toggle_check tools. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 gives three concrete use cases (overview, find offline checks, verify what is already monitored before creating duplicates), which effectively routes the agent away from create_check when discovery is needed. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative tool, so it stops short of the top band.

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