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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it creates a Watcher with platform 'reddit_search', draws from the plan's keyword limit, is not metered, and requires a free account. It does not detail return values or failure modes, but covers the key side effects and prerequisites.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value: it states the core function, the exact use case, the underlying watcher lifecycle, keyword limits, metering, and account requirement. It is front-loaded with the purpose, though the final parenthetical about signup could be clearer. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, which is a minor gap. However, it covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it relates to sibling tools, the keyword limit, metering, and authentication requirement. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the general purpose. The tags and description parameters are already well-explained in the schema, so no extra value is added.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Keyword Monitor entry' and explains what it does: 'searches all of Reddit daily for this query and ingests matches into your Dataset.' It explicitly states it is the tool for 'track keyword X on Reddit' and differentiates itself from sibling tools like watcher_create by noting it creates a Watcher with platform 'reddit_search' under the hood, managed later by watcher_update/watcher_delete.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'This is the tool for "track keyword X on Reddit".' It also provides context on alternatives: watcher_update/watcher_delete manage the created watcher afterwards. It mentions the plan's keyword limit (see keyword_monitor_list) and states that it is 'Not metered,' plus a prerequisite of a free Prowlo account, all of which inform usage.

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