get_synthetic_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core read behavior and expected output content: pass/fail per location, duration, and error messages. It does not mention edge details like pagination or result limits, but for a simple read-only get tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by output summary and a useful pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, references the lookup tool for the required GUID, and the schema documents all parameters. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'recent' loosely maps to the hours parameter and 'specific synthetic monitor' maps to monitor_guid, but it does not explain parameter relationships or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Get recent check results for a specific synthetic monitor.' It also clarifies what the results contain ('pass/fail per location, duration, and error messages'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_app_performance or list_synthetic_monitors.

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 directs the agent to use list_synthetic_monitors to find monitor GUIDs, which is a clear prerequisite and points to the relevant sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other monitoring/query tools.

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