List Monitoring Resources

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: returns a paginated JSON array, pagination via page/per_page, and includes pagination metadata. It also mentions required project_id and the API endpoint, which helps the agent understand context.

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 four sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, output/pagination, and required parameter/API info. It is front-loaded with the core function and has no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (paginated JSON array of Budget records) and pagination metadata. It covers required parameter and filtering via forecast_start_date. Could be enhanced by listing common response fields, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of pagination parameters ('to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata') and confirming required parameter project_id. This helps the agent decide how to use them.

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 tool returns a list of Monitoring Resources (Budget records) on a project. It uses specific language like 'enumerate Budget records' and 'paginated overview', distinguishing it from CRUD operations on individual records. The verb 'list' aligns with the name.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to enumerate Budget records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This provides clear guidance on when to use. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but given the narrow scope, this is sufficient.

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