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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some non-obvious context — source quotas can delay a check, and proxima_em/verificado_em should be read to see status — but it also spends most of its length on e-mail delivery and unsubscribe behavior that appears to belong to the alerts flow, muddying rather than clarifying this tool's 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?

The useful content is the first sentence plus the quota/timestamp note; the remaining sentences about daily check coverage, e-mail destination, unsubscribe links, and a separate endpoint are off-topic for a call with no parameters and no output schema. The signal-to-noise ratio is poor and the front-loading is diluted by the drift.

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?

With no output schema, the description should characterize the returned records; it names the watched servers/skills, review level, slots, plans, and the proxima_em/verificado_em fields, which helps. However, it never states what a 'watched tool' record actually looks like or how results are ordered/paginated, and its notification content is only loosely tied to this read operation.

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 correctly implies no filtering input is required and spends no space on parameter prose.

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 opening clause states the verb and resource precisely: 'The MCP servers and skills the account watches, with their review level, slots and plans.' It doesn't distinguish itself from list_mcp_servers, watch_tool, or watch_alerts, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools (watch_tool, unwatch_tool, watch_alerts, list_mcp_servers). The only conditional guidance is a routing note ('Wallet-only owners read the changes in GET /api/me/vigia/avisos'), which is an access caveat rather than a when-to-use rule.

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