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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the auth requirement (API key) and the downstream effect (matches appear in Recall Kitchen), which annotations do not convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then syntax, then outcome, then prerequisite. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present and idempotency declared in annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps (auth requirement, match destination, syntax reference). Complete enough for correct invocation, though rate limits or dedup behavior are unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'pattern' and 'weight' are already documented in the schema. The description restates the websearch syntax but adds no weight-range or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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+resource ('Add a recall watch pattern') and scope ('for this API key'), clearly distinguishing it from list_watch_patterns and remove_watch_pattern in the sibling set. An agent can identify it 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 implicit context for use (creating watch patterns, matches surfacing in Recall Kitchen) and states a prerequisite (requires an API key). It does not explicitly say when to choose it over siblings like list_watch_patterns, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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