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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('costs the same credits as a scheduled check'), the bounded wait window, the background-continuation behavior for larger checks, and the categories of result ('changed, new, removed and error pages'). It does not mention auth requirements or repeat-invocation cost behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action, cost, and follow-up front-loaded; nothing is filler. Minor redundancy: the '(Beta)' marker duplicates the title and the inline result-category list is slightly clunky.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers cost, wait semantics, background behavior and the follow-up call — everything needed to invoke and continue correctly. It omits any note about permission/auth needs or what happens on repeated invocation, a modest gap against the non-idempotent annotation.

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%, so the schema already documents id, wait_seconds and max_chars_per_page. The description echoes wait_seconds' semantics ('continues after that') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('start a check'), the resource (monitor), and the distinguishing scope ('now, outside its schedule'). An agent can separate this from the scheduled-check behavior and from sibling ragfeed_monitor_checks without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for use (outside the schedule) and an explicit routing rule for the alternative path: 'Larger checks continue in the background: then call ragfeed_monitor_checks with the check id.' Names the follow-up tool and the situation that selects it.

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