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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: resolved events are hidden by default, output is grouped, and project context is required. There are no hidden side effects or contradictions.

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 compact and information-dense, with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds routing and filtering details efficiently.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys what the response will contain: endpoints, drift items, duration, and contract version. Inputs are fully covered by the schema, and sibling alternatives are clearly delineated.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema, and the description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond that. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 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?

Clearly states it lists endpoints whose live responses drift from their contract, grouped by endpoint with drift items, duration, and contract version. Explicitly distinguishes itself from get_schema_drift_report and get_contract_drift, so an agent can pick the correct tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this for endpoints that drift, use get_schema_drift_report for one monitor's history, and use get_contract_drift for one full drift event. Also discloses that resolved events are excluded unless requested.

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