Get Monitor Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it requires a team API key and lists the data fields returned, providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently delivers the core purpose and a key requirement (team API key).

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, data included, and a critical prerequisite (team API key). With 100% schema coverage for parameters and a clear context of sibling tools, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only retrieval tool.

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% for both parameters (monitor_id, limit). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly mentions temporal ordering but no extra parameter details. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'most recent run results for a monitor', listing specific data included (change details, confidence score, evidence URLs, error info). It differentiates from siblings like list_monitors (which lists monitors) and run_monitor_now (which triggers a run).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when needing recent run results, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like generate_change_report or verify_claim.

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