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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds genuinely new context: the call is free (no credits) and is intended for polling, implying a run may be observed in a not-yet-finished state. It stops short of describing error behavior for a bad monitor/run id or any eventual-consistency caveat beyond polling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then returned fields, then usage and cost. No filler; every sentence carries information the agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (status, timing, found/new counts, cost), which is exactly what an agent needs to reason about the result. The remaining gap is parameter identification (monitor id vs run id), which is left partly implicit.

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 50%: `id` is documented only generically as 'Identifier of the resource' and `runId` has no description. The phrase 'one run from the monitor's history' implies `id` is the monitor identifier and `runId` selects the run, but neither parameter is explicitly disambiguated, so the description only lightly compensates.

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 ('Get one monitor run') and immediately enumerates what that single record contains: status, timing, result counts, and cost. The singular framing plus the field list makes it distinguishable from the sibling `list_monitor_runs` without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Poll it after `runMonitor` to see when a run finishes,' which tells the agent both the trigger and the intent (waiting for completion). It does not state when to prefer this over `list_monitor_runs` or what to do if the runId is unknown, so no full when/when-not pairing.

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