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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that the endpoint is private, that evidence is recorded as ALLOW/BLOCK, that submitted payloads are never stored, and critically that the monitor token is shown only once (an irreversible disclosure moment). It omits auth/permission requirements for creation and any failure behavior for an invalid or unpublished contract.

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, front-loaded with the creation action then the operational contract. Little waste, though the privacy/destruction detail could be compressed and the 'shown once' warning could be surfaced more prominently as a caution.

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 creation tool with a one-time secret and no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape (endpoint plus one-time token) but leaves gaps: no mention of the response envelope, whether operationId makes creation idempotent, or quotas per contract. Adequate but not sufficient for confident first-call invocation.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only gestures at 'contract' (contractId) and the returned monitor token; label, accessToken, operationId, and expectedIntervalMinutes are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 and resource: 'Create a private push-monitor endpoint connected to an existing contract.' That clearly separates it from the read/lifecycle siblings (monitor_history, monitor_status, monitor_revoke), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the second sentence explains what to do after creation ('Send each upstream API response to the returned HTTPS endpoint'), and 'connected to an existing contract' hints that a contract must exist first. There is no explicit when-to-use versus monitor_revoke/monitor_status guidance and no stated exclusions or limits on how many monitors may be created.

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