List monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which tells the agent what it can screen on (status, health, last_run). It stops short of describing result ordering, pagination, or what an empty/failing list looks like, so it isn't fully complete.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by purpose and the sibling redirect. No repetition of the title and nothing that could be cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers the required workspace scope plus the optional competitor filter. Minor gaps remain around pagination/limits and behavior when no monitors exist, which a listing tool at this scale would ideally note.

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 schema itself explains that workspace_id comes from list_workspaces/create_workspace and that competitor_id narrows to one competitor. The description paraphrases the optional competitor filter but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List the monitors in a workspace'), the optional competitor scoping, and the exact fields returned (URL, type, cadence, status, health, last_run). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_competitors, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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 concrete use cases ('find a monitor_id or spot failing monitors') and names the alternative path for competitors whose monitors are nested ('use list_competitors'). Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else are stated outright.

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