list_blacklist_monitors

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden by detailing the return structure (monitors array, meta object with pagination). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The 'list' verb implies safety, but the disclosure is not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that lead with the core purpose and then summarize the return payload. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that an output schema exists and the description includes a compact summary of returned fields, the tool is well-documented for a list operation. The only minor gap is the absence of details about default sorting or error behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward paginated list endpoint.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description adds only a generic mention of 'optional filters and pagination', which does not meaningfully enhance the schema's already clear parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('blacklist monitors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_blacklists (which lists blacklists themselves) and get_blacklist_report.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_blacklists or get_blacklist_report). It simply describes the action with no exclusions or context that would help an agent choose it.

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