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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the entitlement precondition, which is useful, but says nothing about what the watch actually does (polling cadence, how changes are surfaced, whether it persists, or what it returns).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its precondition are stated immediately. It is tight, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than efficient phrasing.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter object, the description is the only information source, and it leaves key questions unanswered: how the endpoint is specified, what happens after the watch is created, and how change notifications are consumed.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4. However, the description explicitly references 'an endpoint' as the thing being watched, yet the schema exposes no way to identify that endpoint, creating a mismatch an agent must resolve by inference.

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 (watch) and resource (an endpoint) plus the observed target (status/contract changes), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_watches or explain how a watch relates to get_verdict/probe_endpoint.

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 only guidance is the parenthetical prerequisite '(watch entitlement required)', which is a precondition rather than usage guidance. Nothing says when to create a watch versus calling probe_endpoint or get_verdict, and no alternatives are named.

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