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

The annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description earns credit by explaining that exact side effect: it 'marks them seen so the next check starts from now,' which tells the agent why repeat calls differ. It stops short of covering edge cases such as empty results or permission requirements.

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?

The scope and side effect are front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration of return contents that is hard to parse in one pass. It is informative rather than wasteful, yet tighter phrasing would preserve the same signal.

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 output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return values (events per company, device companies per space, with date and source). Combined with the disclosed side effect, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though empty-result behavior is 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% and the schema already states that 'name' is a company or space, may be partial, and is optional. The description restates the same fact without adding format, matching, or ambiguity-resolution detail, so the baseline of 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?

The first clause names the resource and scope precisely ('what is new on the rep's watches since they last checked') and enumerates the returned contents, which separates it from list_watches and mark_seen. The prose is dense and clause-heavy, but an agent can identify the operation 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?

It implies the trigger ('since they last checked') and explains that passing a name narrows the check to one watch, but it never says when to choose this over list_watches or mark_seen, nor what happens when nothing is new. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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