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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation drains/consumes the accumulated changeset for all watches under the API key, and specifies the differing return shapes per watch type (company 'updated' entry with changed fields vs. CAEN/county 'new' firms). It does not state whether drained data is permanently lost or repeated polling behavior.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the per-watch-type result shape. No filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: what the call returns and how it differs by watch type, plus the fact that it aggregates across all watches for the key. Nothing essential 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 (schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 ('collect everything the watch tools have found', 'drain the changeset for every watch') and clearly distinguishes itself from the watch_* siblings that create watches rather than read their results.

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 says 'call it to drain the changeset', which implies usage after watches exist, but it never states explicitly when to poll versus when to inspect a watch directly, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that watches must already be registered). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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