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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it thoroughly. It discloses the immediate baseline run, scheduling behavior with possible delayed/missed slots, what is recorded on change, the POST attempt with X-Contrie-Signature and one-time secret, cost per accepted run, and the API key requirement. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of side effects and external calls.

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 purpose and every subsequent sentence adds operational or behavioral detail: scheduling, change recording, webhook behavior, cost, and auth. It is dense but not bloated, and no sentence is redundant or 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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers invocation prerequisites, scheduling constraints, side effects, result access, cost, and security-relevant webhook behavior. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret what happens afterward via contrie_changes.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining webhook signing, the one-time secret disclosure, cost behavior, and baseline-run semantics. It does not fully re-explain each parameter, but it meaningfully enriches the most behaviorally complex ones.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Watch one public web page for one question and be told when the answer changes.' This clearly distinguishes monitoring from the single-shot extraction implied by contrie_extract and from reading recorded results via contrie_changes. The scope and intended outcome are 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?

The description conveys when to use the tool: when one page and one question need ongoing change monitoring. It also clarifies prerequisites (public page, API key) and points to contrie_changes for reading results. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name contrie_extract as the one-time alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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