msp360_get_monitoring_for_user

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the tool is read-only by the verb 'get' and specifies the scope to 'online endpoints,' which is useful. However, it does not mention potential absence of data, response format, or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for a read operation with no output schema.

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 wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core action and filter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the unfiltered sibling, and it does not describe the structure of the returned status data. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantics by tying the userId to the filtering concept, but it does not elaborate on the format or constraints beyond what the schema already states ('Existing user ID'). The description adds little value over the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('status data for the latest backup plan runs'), and a scope ('filtered to a specific user'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool msp360_get_monitoring, which presumably covers all users.

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 usage for a single user by saying 'filtered to a specific user,' but it does not explicitly name the alternative (msp360_get_monitoring) or state when to choose one over the other. This is implied context, not explicit guidance.

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