firecrawl_monitor_run

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it notes the action is non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and readOnlyHint=false, aligning with 'trigger a check' and 'returns the queued check'. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but the behavior is adequately described for a simple trigger action.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus a brief code example. Every sentence is valuable, and the most critical information (verb, resource, return value) is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool (1 required param, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The example clarifies usage. While it could mention the return type more explicitly, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single id parameter. It provides a usage example with 'mon_abc123', implying the ID format, but does not explicitly state that id is the monitor ID. This adds some meaning but falls short of fully documenting the parameter. A baseline of 4 for a single param is reduced due to lack of explicit explanation.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'monitor check', distinguishing it from sibling tools like firecrawl_monitor_check and firecrawl_monitor_list. It explains immediate execution outside normal schedule, making the 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 tells when to use ('immediately, outside its normal schedule') and provides a usage example. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, such as firecrawl_monitor_check for checking status. Still, guidance is clear enough for a straightforward tool.

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