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

Annotation Contradiction: The description states 'calling it marks the changes as seen,' which implies a state-changing side effect, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct and material contradiction. Although the description otherwise discloses return fields and safety, the conflicting side-effect statement makes behavioral transparency fail.

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 concise sentences cover the core operation, expected return fields, safety, and the important side-effect of marking changes as seen. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the key return values: monitor status, checks remaining, changed_since_last_poll, and the latest signed change record with a line diff excerpt. It does not explain how limit affects the returned records or what happens with invalid tokens, but the essential calling context is covered.

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?

The description adds crucial meaning to the token parameter by stating it comes from watch_url, which the schema does not explain. The limit parameter is already documented in the input schema with a clear description and default. This compensates for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: ask whether a watched page changed since the last check, using a token. It also distinguishes the check action from its sibling tools watch_url and unwatch_url by focusing on the polling/status behavior.

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 gives clear context: it is meant to be used with a token from watch_url and is safe to call from later runs. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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