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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: records the result, returns a change indicator, counts against monthly quota, and requires a free watch key or paid API key. These side effects, cost, and auth requirements are not visible in the annotations, so the description carries the burden well.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the action, the result/behavior, and the quota/auth requirements. No unnecessary words 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 single-parameter triggering tool with an output schema present, the description covers the trigger semantics, side effects, quota, and authentication. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents monitor_id with 100% coverage, including a helpful reference to create_monitor. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action 'Immediately run a monitor's verification check outside its normal schedule', clearly distinguishing it from read/monitoring tools like get_monitor_result. It also describes the outcome: records the result and returns whether the observed value changed since the last run.

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 for when to use: for an immediate, out-of-schedule verification check. It also states prerequisites (quota and authentication). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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