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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description corroborates and enriches this by disclosing the actual side effect: it 'marks it as seen so the next check starts from now', which explains why repeated calls yield different results. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though permission/rate-limit behavior is unaddressed.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core action ('Runs a saved watch's find search again') and every clause carries information. The run-on length is the only minor cost to readability.

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 takes on the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it specifies device companies plus only-new evidence and its source, and explains the since-last-checked window. It could still clarify behavior on an unknown name or empty results, but the essential contract is covered.

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% with a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'name'. The description only loosely ties it to a 'saved watch's find search' and adds no syntax, format, or validation 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?

States a specific verb and resource: re-runs a saved watch's find search and returns newly surfaced device companies with evidence. An agent can distinguish this from save_space_watch (creation) and find (ad-hoc search) without opening a schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Runs a saved watch's find search again' and 'since it was saved or last checked', which signals the tool operates on an existing watch. There is no explicit when-to-use vs an alternative, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the watch name doesn't exist).

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