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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behaviors: only 'due' sites are processed (no way to force a refresh) and the report is a delta 'since last time', implying server-side check state. It omits whether the call mutates state (updating last-checked timestamps), what happens for an unknown name, and whether the secret is required for access.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the subject ('your daily look at the websites you watch') before the mechanics. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 and no annotations, the description should describe the shape of the change report and the identity/prerequisite model; it only says 'what changed since last time'. It is enough to know roughly what comes back, but not enough to call it confidently on first use.

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 both parameters carry full descriptions (name format, optional secret), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the identity/secret model, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('checks those that are due and reports only what changed'), and the scope (all watched sites, incremental diff) is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with check_site or watch_site, but the resource 'websites you watch' plus 'daily' framing makes it distinguishable from a single-site check.

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?

'Your daily look' implies a periodic digest rather than an on-demand single-site check, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over check_site, nor states the prerequisite that sites must have been added via watch_site/register first — usage is only implied.

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