search_monitors

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It provides filter syntax examples, which helps understanding, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or what happens on no matches. The output schema covers return structure, but not runtime behavior.

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 two brief sentences followed by examples. It is front-loaded with purpose and zero filler. Every line earns its place.

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 search tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies search targets and gives filter formats. It could mention edge cases like no results or case sensitivity, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward search 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all three params have descriptions). The description adds filter examples, but these are already present in the schema's query parameter description, so no additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 tool's verb ('Search') and resource ('monitors'), and specifies searchable dimensions (name, description, status filter). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_monitors (which likely lists all monitors) and get_monitor (which retrieves a specific monitor).

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?

Usage is implied through the search verb and filter examples, but no explicit guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_monitors or get_monitor. The description does not mention exclusions or complementary tools.

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