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

The description discloses substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: AyHire re-checks public GitHub activity about once a day, changes appear on Home and in list_watches with links, paid LinkedIn checks cost about $0.005 each, watches are shared with the workspace team, and the tool cannot watch for posts. These details align with the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false) and add valuable operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses dense but purposeful sentences to explain frequency, rule meanings, paid checks, sharing, and limitations. Despite its length, each sentence adds decision-relevant information, and there is no obvious filler or repetition.

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 complex, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it explains what the watch does, how often detection occurs, how rules are interpreted, cost and consent requirements for paid checks, workspace sharing, and a key limitation about posts. The annotations already cover open-world and idempotency traits, and the description fills in the rest.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds important meaning beyond the schema by defining what each `rules` value means in operational terms: open_to_work, job_change, says_looking, and new_work. It also reinforces the paid_checks cost/frequency and the role_id prerequisite, which helps an agent choose parameters correctly.

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 verb and resource: watch someone in a workspace, optionally for a role. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools like list_watches and unwatch_person by explaining that it creates a persistent watch that surfaces changes on Home and in list_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?

The description gives clear context for using the tool: creating a watch in the current or specified workspace, with an optional role prerequisite via add_people_to_role. It also includes an important usage condition for paid_checks (ask the user first) and notes that watches are shared with the team. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool compared with analyze_github_user or other sibling tools.

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