aiwatcher_monitor_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, permissions needed, rate limits, or potential side effects. For an API tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, which is concisely front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, providing only a bare restatement of the tool's name. It is not verbose, but it lacks the detail that would make the sentence earn its place effectively.

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?

This is a detail-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the 'detail' contains (e.g., settings, prompts, statistics) or how it relates to the required 'id' parameter which is a monitor ID rather than a brand ID. The context is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior or output.

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%: 'id' has a clear description ('AI Search Watcher monitor ID'), and 'body' and 'query' are documented as pass-through objects. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 'Get AI monitoring detail for a brand' merely restates the tool name without specifying what 'detail' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like aiwatcher_monitor_settings or aiwatcher_monitor_prompts. It is vague and does not provide a clear resource or scope beyond the minimal verb.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites are required (e.g., having a monitor ID), or any context for when this detail retrieval is appropriate. It simply states the action without situational context.

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