Get a Monitor run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description does carry some return-content burden and partially meets it by naming evidence and failure reasons, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or what happens if the run is still in progress.

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 tight sentence with the key content (assessment, evidence, failure reasons) front-loaded and no filler.

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 read tool with two required identifiers and an undocumented debug flag plus no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell which identifier to use or what debug changes, and there is no output-shape information to fall back on.

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% for three parameters (id, runId, debug), and the description explains none of them. 'Inspect a run' loosely implies runId identifies the run, but the distinction between id and runId, and the purpose of the debug flag, remain completely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a run'), and adds that it surfaces field assessment, evidence, and failure reasons. That is clearer than a bare 'Get a Monitor run', though it never contrasts itself with get_monitor or get_crawl/get_scrape.

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 indication of when to call this versus siblings like get_monitor, run_monitor, cancel_monitor_run, or list_monitors, nor any prerequisite such as needing a completed run. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.

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