List monitor providers

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 two traits annotations cannot express: the billing behavior ('Does not use credits') and a filtering scope ('Coding-agent providers are omitted'), both of which materially affect agent decisions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the actionable usage hint and the cost/scope caveats. No filler or restated title text.

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?

A zero-parameter read tool with a full output schema and rich annotations needs little more than scope and billing context, both of which are supplied. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field list describes outputs rather than inputs, which is mildly redundant with the output schema but adds no param-level confusion.

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 and resource ('List the answer engines available for monitors') and enumerates the returned fields (key, name, category, costTier). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_monitors and create_monitor, which operate on monitor instances rather than the provider catalog.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream use case ('Use a returned key when creating a monitor target') and a scope exclusion ('Coding-agent providers are omitted'). It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not-to-use, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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