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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what watch agents are, that results include previews, and that there's no text filtering. It also documents the sort parameter values. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (cursor usage), rate limits, or what happens when the list is exhausted. The description adds useful context but leaves some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence defines the resource and its purpose, the second clarifies the lack of filtering, and the third documents the sort parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the core semantics: what watch agents are, that previews are included, no text filter, and sort options. It could be more complete by explaining pagination behavior (cursor/limit) and how this differs from sibling search tools, but for a simple browse tool with an output schema, it's largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the sort parameter ('sort is recent or popular') and implies limit and cursor through 'walk the list' (suggesting pagination). However, it doesn't explain the semantics of limit (max results per page) or cursor (pagination token) beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds some value for sort but not for limit/cursor.

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 purpose: browsing published watch agents, which are standing searches people run against the open web, with a preview of findings. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explicitly noting 'No text filter; walk the list,' making it clear this is a browse-all operation rather than a filtered search.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to browse published watch agents without filtering. It explicitly states 'No text filter; walk the list,' which implies it's not for targeted searches. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_companies or search_jobs for filtered searches, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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