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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral context: the judge scores every ingested call against scenarioGoal, assertions are checked, the ingest secret must be fetched via a specific endpoint, and a plan requirement exists. It does not cover all possible side effects or response shape, but the provided details go well beyond a minimal mention of creation.

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 compact and front-loaded. It leads with the core purpose, then adds essential clarifications about the two most important parameters, a critical follow-up action (reading the secret), and a plan requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key parameter semantics, plan constraints, and a necessary post-create action. It does not describe the response body or error handling, but it gives enough operational guidance to use the tool effectively. A small gap remains around what the tool returns upon success.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value for scenarioGoal by explaining it as "what GOOD looks like" and comparing it to test scenario goals, and for assertions as "plain-English checks." Other parameters are left to the schema, but this added semantics lifts the score above baseline.

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 the specific verb+resource pattern "Create a production monitor," clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_suite. It further clarifies the core semantic of scenarioGoal and the judge/scoring model, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool creates and for what purpose.

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?

Clear context is provided: this is for production monitoring, and it requires a pro or enterprise plan. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as run_test or create_suite, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback tools.

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