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

The description mentions it returns data and lists specific fields, but without annotations, it fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or authentication requirements. The tool appears read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 brief with two sentences, efficiently conveying the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the main action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies returned fields but omits details on error handling, pagination, or authentication, which may be needed for an agent to use it reliably.

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 sole parameter 'itemId' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description adds no additional meaning. While the name suggests an identifier, the description does not clarify its format or source, leaving agents to infer.

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 it retrieves a standard-land record detail and its full event timeline, and specifies returned fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling watch_get tools (e.g., bid_watch_get, grant_watch_get), relying on the tool name to imply the domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like landprice_watch_search or landprice_watch_timeline. The description lacks contextual cues for appropriate usage.

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