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

Discloses that the operation is async and returns once queued, not after the check completes. This adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicates a write). It also hints at the 'active monitor' requirement, though it doesn't elaborate on failure modes or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the key behavioral nuance (async) without extra words. Exemplary conciseness.

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?

Adequate for a simple trigger tool: explains the action and async return. However, it omits explicit parameter binding, doesn't clarify error conditions (e.g., if the monitor is inactive or nonexistent), and offers no details on the return value's shape. The gaps are notable but not crippling.

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 description for 'id' (0% coverage), and the description does not explicitly state that 'id' refers to the monitor ID. While the tool name and title imply it, the agent is left to infer the binding. This is a significant gap given the single parameter and lack of schema documentation.

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 'Queue', resource 'monitor', and adds clarifying detail about the async behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitors_list, monitors_get, and monitors_checks_list, which cover listing, retrieval, and check history respectively.

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 makes clear when to use it (to trigger an immediate check on an active monitor) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state prerequisites (e.g., that the monitor must exist and be active). It provides context without exclusions, falling short of a 5.

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