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

Annotations are minimal (openWorldHint only). The description adds useful context about authentication and plan requirements, but it doesn't disclose side effects, rate limits, or what 'queue' means in terms of execution timing or follow-up behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information: action, target eligibility, and required credentials. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but since there is no output schema, it doesn't explain what the tool returns or whether the check runs asynchronously. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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% for the single monitor_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the input schema.

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 action ('Queue an immediate Page Speed check') and target ('a monitor with Page Speed monitoring enabled'). It is clear about the resource, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get-page-speed to differentiate them.

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 and eligibility conditions: the monitor must have Page Speed monitoring enabled, and the caller needs a Full Access MCP token and an eligible paid plan. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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