Start watching a page

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag readOnly=false and idempotent=false), the description discloses that the call creates persistent state, performs a baseline check, and consumes quota — meaningful operational context. The non-idempotent statement is somewhat redundant with idempotentHint=false, and it omits any note on rate limits or error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the API-key prerequisite, the side effects, and the idempotency caveat are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers creation semantics, side effects, and quota cost well. The one gap is that it never indicates what is returned (e.g. a monitor identifier) that the agent would need for follow-up calls, which is more relevant given no output schema exists.

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 schema already documents all six parameters with detail (URL constraints, term limits, interval minimums). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a monitor') and reinforces it with the title's 'Start watching a page', making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fluxproof_check_now or fluxproof_preflight, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies a prerequisite (a buyer-owned API key) but never states when to choose this tool over fluxproof_check_now, fluxproof_preflight, or fluxproof_get_free_key. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection from sibling names alone.

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