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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure that the result is a response-body hash comparison rather than a semantic diff. That resolves output interpretation, but it never explains why the call is non-read-only/non-idempotent (it presumably triggers a live fetch and mutates watch state) or what auth the token represents.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the semantic caveat immediately after; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, and the hash-vs-semantic-diff note covers the key interpretation question. Still missing for a live external check with loose annotations: the token's purpose/auth requirement and what side effect makes it non-idempotent.

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 0% for both parameters. The description implies watch_id's meaning ('a previously created watch') but says nothing about the required 64-hex token, its role as an auth/ownership credential, or the uuid format expectations, leaving half the parameter surface unaddressed in both schema and prose.

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+resource: it checks a previously created public-source watch, which clearly separates it from source_watch_create/delete/status by the 'previously created' scoping. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with source_watch_status, so the agent must infer the difference between an immediate check and a status lookup.

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?

'immediately' implies the tool is used when you want a fresh check rather than a cached/stored state, and 'previously created' implies source_watch_create must have run first. No explicit when-not or alternative-naming guidance is given, so usage is only implied.

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