msp360_get_monitoring

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it gets status data, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose other traits such as pagination, error behavior, or rate limits. For a simple tool with no parameters, this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Get status data') and concisely specifies scope and content. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states the scope (account-wide) and the nature of the data (health/alerts). It could be more explicit about the exact return format, but for a simple read tool, this is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because there is none to add.

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 purpose: retrieving status data for the latest backup plan runs on all endpoints, with account-wide health/alerts. It specifies the resource (backup plan runs) and scope (all endpoints), distinguishing it from siblings like msp360_get_monitoring_for_user which likely targets a specific user.

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 that this is account-wide, which implies it is not for a specific user. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling msp360_get_monitoring_for_user is named but not referenced, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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