start_printer_health_monitoring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that checks run periodically, alerts are generated on anomalies, and that the number of concurrent watches depends on the plan. Additional context about manual checks not being limited adds transparency. It does not elaborate on alert delivery or error handling, but the coverage is strong.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by supporting details. It includes plan limitations and parameter documentation, with a 'See also' section for related tools. While a bit long, every sentence contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (continuous background process with plan limits), the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, its limitations, parameters, and related tools. No output schema is needed for a start-monitoring action, and the description covers all necessary context.

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 0%, but the description explicitly documents both parameters: 'printer_name: Printer to monitor' and 'interval_seconds: Seconds between health checks (default 30).' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Start continuous background health monitoring for a printer.' It details what the monitoring covers (connectivity, temperature stability, print job health, error detection) and distinguishes it from manual checks and sibling tools like check_printer_health and stop_printer_health_monitoring.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: explains plan limits (one watch on Free and Pro), clarifies that manual checks (printer_status, monitor_print, printer_snapshot) are never limited, and recommends alternatives. It also points out how to stop monitoring via the sibling tool, making the decision context clear.

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