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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: the auth requirement (Bearer hodds_... token, token_required error), the read-side-effect-free guarantee, and the alert ordering/limit behavior. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before calling.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the return shape before caveats, and every clause carries information. It is dense and slightly run-on, which costs a point against ideal structure, but there is no wasted 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still previews the payload contents, covers auth failure mode, and explains alert ordering. Nothing needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying 'all: true' to the 200-alert cap versus the default 50 with unacknowledged first, clarifying the behavioral consequence of the flag. It also reinforces that watch_id comes from watch_need/list_watches.

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 ('Returns one watch of the organisation') and enumerates exactly what the payload includes: constraints, solution, challenger, switch brief, HODDS status, challenger_reason, and alerts. This clearly distinguishes it from list_watches (multiple) and ack_alerts (mutating).

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 sentence 'Reading does not acknowledge' implicitly routes agents to ack_alerts for acknowledgement, giving a clear use context. However, it never explicitly names ack_alerts as the alternative or states when-not to use this tool.

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