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

Annotations already certify read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it returns which status applies and reports what changed and what isn't monitored. It stops short of details like latency or data freshness.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers the usage trigger and status vocabulary with little waste. The dense colon list is efficient but slightly run-on.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the status values and notes that changes and unmonitored areas are reported. It leaves the optional-parameter interaction to the schema.

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 watch_id and receipt_id are already documented as alternatives with their sources. The description does not add format or selection guidance beyond the schema, which is acceptable at high coverage.

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 that it retrieves the status of a watched decision and enumerates the four possible outcomes (still_holds, changed, recall_on_record, expired), making the resource and scope clear. The watch_id reference ties it to watch_decision, so an agent can distinguish this status check from the sibling that creates a watch.

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?

Explicitly says to call it right before acting on a watched decision, giving a clear trigger. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for overlapping checks.

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