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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only behavior, states it does not trigger checks, enumerates the returned fields, specifies the auth paths (email + 6-digit code or session token), and discloses the privacy guarantee that no email addresses are returned.

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-loads the core distinction (list vs. check) in the first clause, then layers return contents, alternative tool, auth, and privacy in a tight sequence with no filler sentences.

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, yet the description enumerates the returned JSON fields (mark, classes, threshold, schedule, dates, alert count, recent hits) and covers authentication, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that code and sessionToken are alternative authentication routes ('or a session token from a previous verification') and ties the code to request_watch_code.

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 ('List the watches you ALREADY have') and immediately scopes it as a read-only view that does NOT check for new filings, which cleanly separates it from the sibling check_watches.

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 routes the agent: 'Use this to see what you are watching; use check_watches to actually run a check for new filings right now.' Both the when and the when-not are named with the alternative tool.

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