search_monitors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only identifies the search scope. It omits read-only/non-destructive behavior, pagination behavior, auth/rate limits, and result format, so an agent gets little beyond the basic purpose.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No filler; every clause contributes.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential search behavior. However, with no annotations or output schema, it omits pagination/result-return context and sibling-routing guidance, leaving it minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so page/perPage and query are documented. The description adds meaningful detail for the query parameter by naming the fields searched (name, query, tags, message), which is not in the schema, though it adds nothing for pagination.

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 states a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (Datadog monitors), and its scope (name, query, tags, message) distinguishes it from list_monitors/get_monitor. An agent can identify it as the text-search tool without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. It does not say to prefer this over list_monitors for text queries or mention any prerequisites, leaving selection to inference.

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