getMonitoringSchedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that no schedule is returned for unmonitored websites and by listing exactly what the schedule read includes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise list of returned fields. The final sentences about unmonitored websites and IDs from listWebsites earn their place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one parameter, rich annotations, an output schema, and a description that already enumerates the returned schedule details plus the no-schedule edge case, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already documents websiteId as 'Website ID from listWebsites', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description repeats this guidance rather than adding new parameter semantics, 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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('a website's recurring-audit schedule'), then enumerates the concrete data points returned. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like setMonitoringSchedule and getSiteAuditStatus.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it notes that website IDs come from listWebsites and explains the 'no schedule' case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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