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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds the full result contract: monitor is null when unwatched, otherwise it carries the monitor id, status, checked account and contact signals, instructions and revision. It also discloses contacts/watched flags and the can_configure permission gate. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, and it matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and identifier source before moving to the return shape, with every clause carrying information. The dense semicolon-chained sentences make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 nested-params read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, the null case, embedded ids, and a permission caveat — enough to call it correctly. Not-found or invalid-card behavior is the main omission.

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 0% and the single param is a bare uuid string, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, identifying cardId as the company card ID sourced from getPipeline via company. It adds no format or error guidance for an ID that isn't in the pipeline, so it isn't quite exhaustive.

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 ("Returns how one pipeline account is watched in Signals") and names the exact input source ("company card ID from getPipeline"). The agent can distinguish this read tool from the sibling mutators like setWatchStatus/watchAccounts without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context by telling the agent where the required identifier comes from ("find it with company") and by indicating the monitor id is what "pausing, resuming or stopping takes", which routes the agent toward the mutation siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer setWatchStatus/watchAccounts over this read.

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