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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, is rate-limited, creates no account/PII, and produces a public unguessable history URL. These details match and enrich the structured annotation hints.

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, then efficiently adds usage context, behavioral caveats, and constraints. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy.

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?

It fully covers the tool's motivation, the relationship to domain_changes, side effects, idempotency, privacy implications, and rate limits. With an output schema present, no essential information is missing for an agent to decide and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful parameter context by explaining the check categories in plain terms and clarifying that a watch is keyed by domain+tool. Domain normalization is already covered in the schema, so no repetition is needed.

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 action and resource: 'Start (or reuse) a daily DechoNet watch on a domain'. It clearly distinguishes this from one-off checks and from the sibling domain_changes tool by explaining that the watch records changes over time.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user cares about a domain beyond a one-off check, with concrete examples. It also names domain_changes as the follow-up tool and implies that one-off checks should use other tools, giving clear selection guidance.

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