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

Annotations already declare openWorld, idempotent and destructive hints, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. What it adds is non-obvious behavioral detail: checks restart and the next check fires immediately if the previous one is older than the interval — information an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the scheduling consequence. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 simple two-parameter state-change tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers effect and timing semantics. It would only be stronger with a note on the required monitor state (paused) and what happens on an already-running monitor.

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%, with both monitor_id and project_id documented inline including the 'see whoami' pointer for project_id. The description adds nothing beyond 'by ID', so 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 and resource (resume a monitor) plus the scoping key (by ID), which clearly separates it from pause_monitor and update_monitor. It stops short of naming the inverse sibling explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'resume a paused monitor' implies the precondition that the monitor must currently be paused, which is useful usage context. However, it never names pause_monitor or cancel-type siblings as alternatives, and gives no guidance on what to do if the monitor is already running.

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