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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavioral detail: read scope requirement, 7-day retention, newest-20 limit, outcome meanings, detailed rejection reasons, no-row conditions, and untrusted_fields semantics. This is unusually complete for interpreting diagnostic results.

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 long but front-loads the scope and purpose, then uses dense lists to explain diagnostic codes. Most content is relevant for interpreting results, though the exhaustive reason list is close to over-specified for tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, retention, attempt outcomes, rejection reasons, and special fields. It does so thoroughly and leaves no major diagnostic interpretation gap.

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 documents the single monitor_id parameter, and the description refers to 'one monitor' but does not add syntax or sourcing details beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, 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 states a specific diagnostic purpose: why traces, metrics, or logs sent to one monitor did or did not arrive. It names the exact return content (newest 20 ingest attempts, last_accepted_at, newest traced run summary) and distinguishes the use case from setup or general monitoring.

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 clear usage context: 'For checking a test span, or telemetry sent with nothing showing.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_trace_setup or get_monitor.

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