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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the payment model, the 7-day renewal window, that polling keeps the watch alive, and that no API key or account is required. It does not cover error behavior or exact return payload, but the most important non-obvious behaviors are disclosed.

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 core usage is front-loaded and the structure is logical: what it does, how to pass since, then cost/auth context. However, the paid-poll explanation is repeated several times in slightly different phrasing ('New paid watches include 7 days', 'After that window...', 'Free through...'), which makes the description wordier than necessary.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: required IDs, cursor semantics, cost, renewal, and authentication. It could be more explicit about the format of returned alerts or when to prefer sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for making a correct call.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for the 'since' parameter by framing it as the last sequence number seen and explaining that the response carries a new cursor. This goes beyond the schema without redundancy.

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 clearly identifies the operation: polling a watch for new alerts since the last run. It adds concrete semantics with 'since={last seq you saw}' and mentions the response cursor. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling poll_trial, 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: you have an existing watch with a known sequence, and you want to fetch what's new since your last poll. It also explains the polling/cost lifecycle, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus siblings like poll_trial or check_now.

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