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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses channel variability ('the reply reports what will really be sent, and it can be nothing at all, so read it rather than assuming'), the reminder ladder and content ('each one states the company, the deadline, the date, the days remaining and the penalty'), and the idempotent/update behavior. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then addresses key gotchas (channel availability, no saved filing needed, ladder, update behavior). It is not overly verbose given the amount of behavioral detail it conveys.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what reminders contain, channel variability, and re-call semantics. It stops short of enumerating error cases or jurisdiction-specific nuances, but for the given complexity this is sufficient.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by specifying the default ladder (90, 60, 30, 14, 7, 1) not present in the schema, and by explaining the 'tightest rung' logic and channel dependency, which clarifies the email and push parameters beyond their basic type/description.

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 clear verb-resource-purpose statement: 'Watch a company by its register number and get reminded before its filing deadlines.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like untrack_company_deadlines and save_filing by explicitly noting that no saved filing is needed. The scope is 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?

It explains when to use this tool relative to saving filings ('No saved filing is needed: this is for the deadline itself') and clarifies re-calling behavior ('Calling this again updates the settings and un-mutes a company that was untracked'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is enough for an agent to infer that this is for deadline tracking, not for filing preparation.

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