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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state read-only behavior. It adds the prerequisite 'Requires project context,' which is a behavioral requirement. It also describes the output content (coverage, missing monitors, etc.), providing additional context beyond the read-only hint.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the output details are listed concisely. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 explains the purpose, the output (coverage, missing monitors, drift-watched count), and a prerequisite (project context). Since there is no output schema, this description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond mentioning 'spec' and 'one environment,' which map to specId and environmentId. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, a 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 clearly states the action: 'Compare a spec against the monitors that exist for it in one environment' and enumerates specific outputs (coverage, endpoints without monitors, monitors pointing at gone endpoints, drift-watched count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_monitor or list_monitors, which focus on individual monitors or lists, not sync status.

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 says 'The starting point before generating monitors,' which gives clear usage context. It also notes 'Requires project context,' a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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