Get one monitor

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat safety guarantees. It adds meaningful behavioral context by describing what 'full' means and the type-specific fields the list view omits, going beyond the annotation baseline.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding usage guidance and type-specific detail examples. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has one well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what makes this tool valuable and when to invoke it. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'Monitor id, as returned by list_monitors' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter syntax. It adds related context about using it after list_monitors but does not expand on the parameter itself beyond schema coverage, matching the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Read one monitor in full') and clearly identifies the resource and added value over list_monitors by naming type-specific details (HTTP status codes, PORT protocol/port, SSL/DOMAIN expiry). This distinguishes it from sibling tools and the list view.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use it after list_monitors when the answer depends on how the check is configured' and gives concrete examples like timeout tightness or watched port. This provides clear situational guidance and implicitly contrasts it with the list tool.

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