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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive. The description adds important behavioral context: it is conditional on access permissions, free businesses are blocked, and a pre-access check is required. However, it does not describe the effect beyond 'marked as watched' or any side effects (e.g., UI changes, notifications).

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 five sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. The subsequent sentences add critical usage guidance without verbosity. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 simple state-marking tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage preconditions, and access restrictions. It lacks information on error handling or what happens after successful marking, but the context is fairly complete. No output schema means return values are not expected to be described.

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?

There is one required parameter 'communityId' with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly define its format or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but the parameter is self-explanatory in context. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value for the parameter.

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 uses specific verb 'mark' and resource 'community manager home tutorial as watched', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'dismiss_cmp_home_get_started' or 'record_cmp_visit'. The purpose is unambiguous and directly stated in the first sentence.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It mandates checking business permissions, states that FREE businesses cannot use this tool, instructs to call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, and requires showing grace-period warnings and never proceeding when access is blocked. This is comprehensive usage context.

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