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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — it costs no credits — but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid or deleted id, which for a fetch-by-id tool is the main unknown.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the identity of the resource front-loaded and the cost note kept secondary. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter read, rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient; the only gap is not-found/error behavior. No output schema exists, so it needn't describe the returned monitor shape.

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 100% and there is only one parameter with a uuid format, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's "by id" adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema; 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?

The description identifies a single saved monitor retrieved by id, which is specific enough to separate it from list_monitors (plural listing) and get_monitor_run (run-level). The verb is elided ("One saved monitor by id") rather than stated, but the resource and cardinality are 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?

"by id" implies this is the lookup path once an id is known, and the sibling name list_monitors makes the alternative inferable, but the description never explicitly says when to use this instead. No prerequisites, no statement about what to do when the id is unknown.

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