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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's main value is disclosing that runs are free and cost no credits, plus the general content of each run. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but it adds meaningful cost and payload context beyond the 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?

The description is two compact sentences with the payload summary front-loaded and the cost note second. Every phrase contributes useful information with no wasted text.

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 appropriately characterizes the returned run data as timing, findings, and cost. Combined with rich annotations and a simple two-parameter schema, it is nearly complete, though it could mention result ordering or pagination behavior.

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%, so the id and limit parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness but warrants the baseline score.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a monitor's recent runs and summarizes the returned fields: when each ran, what it found, and cost. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular sibling get_monitor_run, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_monitor_run or list_monitor_results. The word 'recent' weakly implies a listing use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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