get_load_balancer_health_monitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers behavioral aspects well: it mentions the tool lists monitors, shows types and settings, returns a JSON string, and can be filtered by pool. This is sufficient for a read-only operation.

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 well-structured with a summary, bullet points, usage examples, and argument/return details. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, making it effective without being overly long.

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 description covers the tool's core functionality, parameter, and return format. Given the simple input schema and presence of an output schema, it is adequately complete. It could mention error cases or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic list 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds meaning: 'Optional pool name or ID to filter monitors (empty for all)'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 'Get health monitors, optionally filtered by pool' and lists specific functions. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_load_balancer_*' tools by focusing on health monitors, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage examples like 'Show all health monitors' and 'List health monitors for pool [name/id]', giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among siblings.

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