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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds critical behavioral details: 'no credentials' beyond the read_token, 'never counted as an AI read', 'No score', and explanations of limitations like 'nothing declared yet, no history, reporting off, kit too old, part never named'. This goes well beyond the annotations to inform the agent of side effects and constraints.

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 dense but every sentence carries meaningful information: the core output, the ordering, what's included, what's excluded, the reasons for exclusions, and remediation guidance. It is front-loaded with the purpose and has 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?

For a read-only tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns, what it doesn't, the limitations, and how to resolve issues. There is no missing critical information an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters (install_id and read_token) already described. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage nuances for these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: it returns 'one project's Vigilance verdict and every watch behind it, worst first', including what each watch watches, its current state, and evidence. It also clearly distinguishes itself as the only tool dealing with vigilance status, making it easy to separate from siblings like boosthis_alerts or boosthis_crash_risk.

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 implies when to use it (to inspect vigilance and its underlying watches) and explicitly states what it cannot do, such as setting a rhythm, directing the user to expectEvery() or the project page instead. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the unique scope makes the usage context clear.

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