Get monitor

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information not in structured fields: the set of fields returned and the special 'legacy' response for monitors on legacy enrichments.

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 return payload. The leading 'get monitor' line duplicates the title and earns little, but the rest is dense with no padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape at a useful level and flags the legacy edge case. It stops short of describing the nested schedule/webhook structure an agent might need to parse, but it is sufficient to call 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?

There is a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the 'mon_...' id format. The description adds nothing about the id, 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?

The description names the resource (monitor) and enumerates what it returns — schedule, webhook, next run time, dataset and columns — which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_monitors or get_enrichment, but 'get' plus the required id makes single-resource retrieval clear.

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 only implied: fetch one monitor's detail by id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_monitors or how it relates to list_monitor_runs, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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