search_monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context about the search semantics (full-text, faceted, substring matching) beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't detail pagination or rate limits beyond the schema.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance with a named alternative. No wasted words, and the key points are front-loaded.

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?

The description, combined with a 100%-covered schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, fully covers purpose, usage, safety, and return values. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both query and per_page clearly documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs 'Full-text/faceted search across monitors' with examples of facets (tag, status, text in query/name). It also distinguishes itself from list_all_monitors by noting the exact-match limitation, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'Use this when: list_all_monitors's exact-match filters aren't enough'. It names the alternative tool and provides a concrete use case (searching by substring across facets), effectively covering both when and when-not to use it.

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