doorzo_check_monitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'notify and log matches,' which are important side effects, but leaves specifics vague (e.g., how notification occurs, what logging entails, persistence, external side effects). With no annotations, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and outcome ('Check monitors for NEW deals; notify and log matches'), making it easy to parse and ideal for quick agent scanning.

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 tool has low complexity, complete parameter schemas, and an output schema, which reduces the need for extensive description. However, key behavioral aspects are ambiguous: what counts as 'NEW deals,' how notification is performed, and the exact logging behavior are unspecified. These gaps matter for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the user's request.

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%, with both parameters (monitor_id and watch_minutes) clearly described in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable since the schema already provides full semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('monitors for NEW deals'), clearly indicating the tool's core function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like doorzo_monitor_list (which lists monitors) and doorzo_search (which searches deals) by focusing on checking monitors for new matches, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to check monitors for new deals) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the decision partially to the agent's inference.

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