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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that grouping changes the response to an environment → spec tree and that paging does not apply in that mode. It also explains what includeStats adds (24h uptime, p95 latency, sparkline). This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotation does not cover, with no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two optional behaviors, then the alternative and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 list tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors (grouping, stats), the intended use cases, and the alternative. It does not explicitly describe the return structure beyond 'current status' and the stat fields, but given the tool's simplicity and the pointer to get_monitor for details, this is largely sufficient. A mention of the response format would push it to 5.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds extra nuance for grouped (environment → spec tree, sidebar appearance, paging behavior) beyond the schema's one-line description. For includeStats, it largely echoes the schema but confirms the intent. This adds some value beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the monitors of a project with their current status.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_monitor by explicitly stating that get_monitor is for a single monitor with its checks. The optional grouping and stats flags are also mentioned, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to browse monitors or find a monitor id; for one monitor with its checks use get_monitor.' It also states a prerequisite, 'Requires project context,' and explains the effect of the grouped flag on paging. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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