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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the access requirement (Watch subscribers with a key), the effective timing (changes apply from the next weekly check), and a meaningful side effect (history restarts for a changed question) that the idempotentHint/destructiveHint flags do not convey. The history reset is worth noting against destructiveHint=false, but since it is a side effect of an update rather than data deletion, it is a soft tension rather than a contradiction.

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 audience and function, then the conditional guidance, then the effect of changes, with no redundant sentences. The opening fragment ("OperStack Watch subscribers, with their key") is terse and slightly clipped, but overall the text is tight and well ordered.

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 4-parameter read/write tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, the read payload (the 10 questions), the write modes, and the timing of effects. The only real gap is that the return shape of the read is only implied, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 100%, and every parameter's semantics (site, number, question, questions) plus the constraints (1-10, at least 5 words, exactly 10 different) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the one-question-vs-all-ten modes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: shows the 10 buyer questions Watch asks ChatGPT and Perplexity weekly, and can replace one or all ten. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like my_visibility, what_changed, and who_instead. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the 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 explicit when-to-change guidance: "Only change questions when the person asked for it," establishing read as the default and write as the exception. It does not name an alternative sibling for related tasks, but the read-vs-write condition is clearly stated.

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