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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and repeat-safety profile is known. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond that — that it can lift a system-imposed pause after repeated failed checks — but says nothing about whether the failure state or counters reset, or whether re-enabling restarts alerting.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the edge case follows as a qualifier rather than burying the main point.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description gives enough to act: what it does, what state it requires, and the notable auto-pause case. A note on the not-paused outcome would make it complete.

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% and the only parameter, monitor_id, is already documented as coming from monitor_list. The description adds no new meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Start checking a paused monitor again' makes the state transition unambiguous, and the naming pair with monitor_pause is obvious even though the sibling is not named explicitly. It clearly is not monitor_get, monitor_update, or monitor_create.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it applies to paused monitors, and the description usefully notes it also covers system-paused-after-failures cases. There is no explicit guidance on what happens if the monitor is already active or not paused, nor any stated prerequisite for obtaining monitor_id.

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