firecrawl_monitor_checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or sorting order. With annotations covering safety, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Extremely concise: one line of description plus a useful usage example. No wasted words, but the lack of parameter descriptions could be seen as under-specification rather than conciseness. Still, 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?

Despite being a simple read operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain parameters (0% coverage) or return format. The usage example provides hints but not completeness. More context on filtering and pagination would be expected.

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%. The description does not describe any parameter meanings, and the usage example only shows id, limit, and status but not offset. The enum values for status are not explained. Minimal added value over the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List historical checks for a monitor', matching the verb 'list' and resource 'historical checks'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'firecrawl_monitor_check' (singular, likely get one check) and 'firecrawl_monitor_list' (list monitors).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The usage example provides a basic call structure but does not explain when to use this tool over others like 'firecrawl_monitor_check' or filtering with parameters.

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