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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call actually queries the register, that results are limited to filings since watch start / last check, that they are risk-scored, and the scheduled cadence. It omits auth/rate-limit or cost details and does not state what happens on a watch with no prior check, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then rationale and cadence; every sentence adds information. The em-dash-heavy, multi-clause opening sentence is slightly dense and could be split, but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape ('JSON with only the filings that appeared since... scored by risk') and a scope disclaimer ('SCREEN ONLY — not clearance, not legal advice'), which is the right amount for a single-parameter trigger tool.

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 id parameter and its 'omit to check all' semantics are already documented. The description restates the same all-or-one behavior without adding format or edge-case detail, 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 and resource ('Run a check for NEW filings RIGHT NOW') with scope ('all your watches, or one by id') and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_watches ('which only shows what you have'). An agent can tell it apart from sibling tools without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use ('when you want fresh results immediately') and names the alternative behavior to expect from list_watches, plus the relationship to the scheduled daily checker. Both the trigger and the exclusion are spelled out.

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