create_monitor

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuine behavioral constraints beyond the schema (plan-limited monitor count, plan-limited intervals, add-on prerequisites), but says nothing about duplicate-URL handling, authentication, error behavior, or what the call returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the type taxonomy and plan constraints. The mention of tech_stack/whois types that the schema does not list slightly undercuts the efficiency, but there is no filler 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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the type taxonomy and plan/add-on constraints well. It omits what a successful create returns (monitor id?), how duplicates are treated, and any failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 every parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the type list rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema; notably it mentions tech_stack and whois types that do not appear in the schema's type parameter, which is mildly confusing rather than illuminating.

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 ("Create a new monitor for a web page") that is unambiguously distinct from list_monitors, get_monitor, update_monitor, delete_monitor, and set_monitor_status. It goes further by enumerating the monitor types the tool supports, so an agent immediately knows the scope of creation.

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 real usage context: which types exist, that tech_stack/whois require a matching add-on, and that monitor count and check intervals are plan-dependent. It never names a sibling tool or states when not to use this one (e.g., to modify an existing monitor), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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