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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds non-obvious cost context ('FREE: database only, no credits spent') that an agent cannot derive from annotations. It stops short of disclosing pagination or result ordering.

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?

Two compact clauses with the resource definition front-loaded and the cost note second; no filler and every clause carries information.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the resource is and the cost profile, but it does not say what a returned monitor record contains, which is the main remaining gap.

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% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in-schema (including where to get an ID), so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already provided. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists a project's brand monitors') and then defines the resource itself as targets re-scanned by Brand Radar on a schedule, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_competitor_monitors and from run_brand_radar_scan.

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 explains the scheduling distinction versus run_brand_radar_scan, which hints at the usage context, but never states when to call this tool (e.g. before upsert_brand_monitor or delete_brand_monitor) or what alternatives exist for inspecting monitors.

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