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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not explicitly state whether it is side-effect-free, what authentication is required, or any potential rate limits or errors.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words or redundant information. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the lack of parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotation context, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand how to call the tool, what to expect in return, or how to handle edge cases. It provides only a high-level summary.

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 provides no descriptions for the three parameters (limit, api_key, monitor_id), and the tool description only implicitly references monitor_id ('for a monitor'). None of the parameters' meaning, constraints, or formatting are explained, leaving the agent without essential usage details.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('evidence receipts'), and the scope ('for a monitor'), making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action and resource are distinct enough to infer its role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., check_now, create_monitor, offer, preflight). There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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