Check monitor now

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds context the annotations cannot: each call burns one of the monthly quota, a too-recent call returns 429 refresh_throttled, and results are asynchronous. These are the exact operational constraints an agent needs before invoking a metered, non-idempotent call.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by cost, error behavior, async retrieval, and the workspace-wide alternative. Every sentence carries distinct operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating that results arrive asynchronously and naming the tools that return them. Combined with the quota and 429 disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single monitor_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_monitors or list_competitors. The description only says 'one monitor' without adding format, type, or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Queue an immediate check of one monitor.' The 'one monitor' scope immediately separates it from refresh_workspace, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the alternative and the condition that selects it ('To check every monitor in a workspace, use refresh_workspace') and tells the agent what to do with the result ('read them later with list_changes or get_monitor'). That is explicit when-to-use and post-call routing, not inference.

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