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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing confirmation-prompt behavior, token-scope fallback, potential alert firing on a down result, and the heartbeat limitation. The explicit 'Not read-only' reinforces the readOnlyHint=false annotation without contradicting it.

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?

All four sentences carry meaningful information: the core action, confirmation behavior, alert side effect, and heartbeat exception. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and safety context: side effects, confirmation, scope, and a major exception. No critical information needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single `id` parameter is already documented as 'The monitor id (from `list_monitors`).' The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a check on a monitor immediately and record the result.' This clearly distinguishes run_check_now from read-oriented or state-changing siblings like get_monitor, pause_monitor, and resume_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly notes that heartbeat monitors cannot be probed, which is a valuable exclusion. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for reading monitor status, but the intended use is still inferable.

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