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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: which fields are returned and the non-obvious rule that watches whose event ended more than a week ago are silently omitted unless include_archived is set. It does not mention pagination behavior for a paged list.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, the archival edge case, then the sibling pointer. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant content leads.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it covers the key filtering caveat. It is slightly incomplete for a 6-parameter list tool with no pagination or sort/order semantics documented anywhere.

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 only 33% — search and include_archived are documented, while page, sort, limit and order are bare. The description reinforces include_archived's semantics ('left out unless include_archived is true'), which is genuine compensation, but the four pagination/sorting parameters remain unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the events the account watches') and immediately scopes the return payload (current prices, armed triggers, alert counts, alerts_live). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_views, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Provides one explicit alternative and its condition: 'Use list_views for saved screens.' It also explains the default exclusion of old ended events and how include_archived changes it. No guidance is given on other watch-related siblings (list_watch_triggers, get_watch_defaults), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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