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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the read-only nature, and the description adds transparency about what the include flags do and what data is returned. No conflicting side effects are mentioned, and the description accurately reflects the tool's 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?

The description is concise yet informative, using a clear structure: a one-line purpose, a summary of the include flags, and explicit usage and context notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns (recent checks, uptime/latency, alert policy, maintenance windows, fire/resolve history) and prerequisite context. Since there is no output schema, this textual description sufficiently informs the agent about expected results and usage constraints.

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?

Each of the six parameters has a clear, descriptive schema entry. The main parameter monitorId is explained as a GUID obtainable from list_monitors, and the include flags are each described with their effect. The description adds extra context on top of the schema, fully clarifying parameter meaning.

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 the tool fetches a single monitor with its recent checks, and differentiates it from list_monitors. It explicitly names the purpose and scope, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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 description provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this when you already have the monitor id; to browse a project's monitors use list_monitors.' It also notes the prerequisite of project context, giving clear conditions for when to invoke this tool.

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