Get monitoring hits of the last 24 hours

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral expectations: the result must not be softened, filtered, or reinterpreted, and professional assessments belong in the customer portal, not the conversation. This adds significant context about output handling.

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, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing crucial compliance guidance. Both sentences are necessary and add value without redundancy.

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 an output schema present and a fully described single parameter, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, the time scope, and how to handle results. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for the single 'list' parameter, including enum values and their meanings. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'Returns' and the specific resource: easycompliance's DAILY monitoring hits from the last 24 hours. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_sanctions_list by focusing on historical monitoring hits rather than direct list checks.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool, particularly emphasizing the result as the authoritative source for reporting hits. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives like check_sanctions_list, so it falls short of a full 5.

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