list_monitored_areas

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: it explains that coverage window_total null means catalog total UNKNOWN, never zero, and explicitly states the operation is free of token charges. This significantly enhances transparency.

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 concise yet packed with necessary details. It front-loads the primary action, lists the returned fields in a readable flow, and adds a crucial null-semantics clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The description is fully sufficient for a read-only list tool with an output schema. It covers the returned fields, plan limits, and a key data interpretation caveat, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns or how to interpret it.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the empty schema provides 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and per the calibration baseline, 0 params merits a 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with a clear resource ('places under continuous satellite measurement on this key (Delta Monitor)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_monitored_area (which fetches a single area) and create_monitored_area. The scope and returned data are explicitly stated.

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?

The description clearly conveys it returns all monitored areas with metrics, and the naming convention (list_*) implies its role. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_monitored_area for single-area queries or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the top bar.

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