get_synthetic_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature and output shape (pass/fail, duration, errors). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple results retrieval tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a clear function: stating action and providing usage aid.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return data. It covers key elements (per-location results, duration, errors). It lacks details on pagination or error handling but is sufficient for a straightforward query tool.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by indicating that monitor_guid comes from list_synthetic_monitors, but it largely repeats parameter descriptions from the schema (e.g., hours). Improvement is marginal.

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 retrieves recent check results for a specific synthetic monitor and lists the data shown (pass/fail per location, duration, error messages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity_search or get_entity, which serve different purposes.

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 instructs to use list_synthetic_monitors to find monitor GUIDs, guiding the agent on prerequisite steps. While it doesn't specify when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for typical use cases.

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