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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: monitors on shared pages have no id and must be addressed by page_id and slug, and the output includes status, page, and access fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed by a critical caveat about shared pages. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (status, page, access) and covers the main edge case. Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the annotations covering safety, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, page_id, which the schema already describes with a hint ('from list_pages'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The mention of 'on one page' in the description aligns with the parameter, but no new meaning is added beyond the schema's own description.

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 tool lists monitors across all visible pages or a specific page, and specifies the included fields (status, page, access). It also highlights a unique edge case (shared pages lack ids), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_monitor. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives clear context on when to use it: to list monitors across all pages or one page, with an optional page_id. It also provides guidance for the special case of shared pages, telling the agent to use page_id and slug instead of id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_monitor for single-monitor retrieval, so usage exclusions are only implicit.

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