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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the primary behavioral trait, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds useful behavioral detail such as 'newest first' and the effect of onlyErrors, but does not mention potential pagination limits or context-requirement implications beyond 'Requires project context'.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and result contents, then immediately covering the key filters and the sibling alternative. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only list operation with all parameters documented, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, the ordering, filtering options, and the sibling tool to use instead. It does not describe pagination behavior beyond the take/skip defaults, but those are present in the schema and are self-explanatory.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying monitorId as 'Public ID (GUID) of the monitor, from list_monitors' and by explaining the filtering intent of onlyErrors and the time window semantics of from/to, going beyond bare property names.

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 ('List the individual checks a monitor ran'), the resource (checks for a monitor), and the result contents (status code, response time, timing breakdown). It also distinguishes itself from get_monitor and list_monitors by specifying it is for individual checks of one monitor.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this for the individual checks of one monitor') and names the alternative ('for the monitor itself use get_monitor'). It also explains the optional filters onlyErrors, from, and to, leaving no ambiguity about selection criteria.

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