Run Monitor Now

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

Annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it records results, returns a change indicator, counts against monthly quota, and requires a team API key. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the main action. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 low parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: usage context, quota impact, auth requirements, and result behavior. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the single required parameter 'monitor_id'. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 tool runs a monitor's verification check immediately outside its normal schedule. It uses specific verbs and resources, and effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_monitors or create_monitor.

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 indicates this tool is for immediate checks outside normal schedule and mentions quota impact, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like get_monitor_result for past results.

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