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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds useful context by concretely stating the effect (the watch is deleted, future alerts cease) and the authentication requirement (OAuth sign-in or almmity API key). It stops short of saying whether historical contractor data is retained or whether re-adding is possible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by effect and auth precondition. No filler and nothing buried.

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 destructive one-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the action, effect, and auth requirement. Minor remaining gaps are error behavior for a NIP that has no active watch and the NIP format.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single 'nip' parameter. It says the contractor is 'identified by NIP', which confirms the parameter's role but adds no format or validation detail (e.g., 10-digit Polish tax ID), despite a nip_checksum sibling existing.

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 ('Remove one contractor ... from monitoring') and disambiguates from add_watch/list_watches by naming the account scope and the NIP identifier. The agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

'Deletes the watch and stops future alerts' establishes the clear context for calling it (you want to stop monitoring a contractor). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_watches for verifying an existing watch, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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