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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds the observable effect (conflicts on new filings) and class scoping, but leaves 'near it' undefined and does not mention permissions or what the watch record looks like.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional parameter behavior following. 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?

For a simple mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify the 'near it' matching concept or what a caller should expect after the watch is created.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'brand name' implies the required mark, and classes are explained with format example ('9,42') plus the blank-every-class default. Minor gaps remain around mark format constraints.

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 ('Start watching') and resource ('brand name'), and explains the effect (new filings near it show up as conflicts). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as screen_mark or my_watches.

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?

Implies when to use it by saying 'Start watching a brand name', but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives like screen_mark for one-off checks. The optional classes behavior is defined, but comparison guidance is absent.

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