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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a 100-per-page cap, cursor-based pagination, default sort, and default sort ordering — the kind of operational detail an agent needs to page correctly.

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 return shape is front-loaded before the operational details, and almost every clause carries information. It is one dense paragraph with somewhat telegraphic phrasing ('Fit when Whimbrel has scored it'), which reads a little compressed rather than wasteful.

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 must carry the return shape, and it does — latest change date, what happened, source link, Fit, added date/location, watched flag, unseen flag. Some of those field explanations are terse enough to be ambiguous, but an agent can call and interpret the tool without further information.

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 only 60% (sort and watched_only carry no schema descriptions), and the description compensates: it enumerates the four sort values with 'added' as the default, defines changed_since's YYYY-MM-DD format and filter effect, and explains watched_only's semantics. Only the limit/cursor params are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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 description names the resource (the rep's targets, i.e. companies) and enumerates what each row carries, which is far more specific than the bare name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from add_target/remove_target by being read-oriented, but never states a verb or names a sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Pagination and filtering mechanics are explained ('pass next_cursor for more', 'changed_since keeps targets with a change since then', 'watched_only keeps watched ones'), which tells the agent how to narrow results. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool instead of the many siblings (find, company, account, list_watches, rank_list), so the choice is left to inference.

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