Get monitor results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with the billing behavior ('Does not use credits') and the underlying HTTP method, which helps an agent reason about cost and semantics. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the lookup key, with the endpoint and the cost note appended. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more about what 'results' actually are (check results, incidents, metrics?) and how paging works with limit/offset. It covers the identity and cost aspects adequately but leaves the return shape and pagination to inference.

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 75%, above the high-coverage baseline, and the schema itself documents monitorId, limit (200 cap) and since. The description only restates that results are looked up by monitor UUID, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and the undescribed offset parameter gets no help.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (monitor results) keyed by monitor UUID, and even names the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/monitors/:monitorId/results. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_monitors and create_monitor, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch results for a given monitor. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_monitors or other monitoring siblings, and no mention of the since/limit/offset filters for narrowing results. The 'Does not use credits' note is the one genuinely usage-relevant hint (cost-free call).

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