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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the stateful behavior: a registration-date cutoff is stored, poll_watchlist returns new firms, and the cutoff slides forward so each firm surfaces once. This is important side-effect information, though details like authentication or potential errors are not covered.

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?

The description is well structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the polling/cutoff mechanism in a compact way, and finally gives parameter-level guidance. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to use it correctly: how the watch is set, how results are retrieved via poll_watchlist, and how matching behaves. It could mention the immediate return value in more detail, but the overall context is sufficient.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: code is a CAEN activity code with an example ('6201'), and county is optional, defaults to null, and is diacritic-insensitive with nationwide scope when omitted. This gives sufficient meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description states a specific action: 'Watch a CAEN activity code (optionally in one county) for NEWLY REGISTERED firms.' It clearly identifies the resource (CAEN activity code, optional county) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like watch_company by focusing on code/county-based monitoring rather than a specific company.

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 description provides clear context on how the watch mechanism works and when it is relevant: it tracks newly registered firms after a baseline cutoff, and omitting county means nationwide coverage. While it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as watch_company, the intended use case is clear and actionable.

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