Create HTTP monitor

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds context: checks run from probes in several countries, what counts as downtime (unexpected status code, timeout, connection failure), and the risk of duplicates. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by sibling differentiation and operational context. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, key alternative, operational details (geographic probes), and a pre-check step. Output schema exists, so return values are covered there. It does not exhaustively discuss all sibling tools, but it's complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description adds context about general behavior (e.g., 'anything a browser would open') but does not provide parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 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's function: 'Watch a web page or endpoint over HTTP/HTTPS and treat an unexpected status code, a timeout or a connection failure as downtime.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming create_api_monitor as the alternative when response body matters, and the URL schema note references create_ping_monitor for bare hostnames.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is the right type for anything a browser would open' and 'Choose create_api_monitor instead when the response body matters as well as the status code.' It also instructs to call list_monitors first to avoid duplicate URLs, giving a clear prerequisite.

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