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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never states whether the watch persists, whether it is idempotent for an already-watched address, whether watched data goes stale and needs refresh_watches, or what permission/ownership is required. 'Start watching' implies ongoing monitoring but nothing about lifecycle or side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the action statement is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 3-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: no statement of effect, persistence, idempotency, or error behavior, and one parameter format is unexplained. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently or safely.

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 67% (address and label are documented, chains is bare), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond the word 'address'. The undocumented 'chains' string parameter — whose format is critical for scoping the watch — is left unexplained in both places.

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 ('Start watching an address'), which is unmistakable and distinct from read-oriented siblings like list_watched or get_dashboard. It does not, however, contrast itself with related siblings such as refresh_watches or watch_demo_set, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Provides an explicit triggering context ('Use when onboarding a new agent or Safe'), which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It gives no when-not guidance and names no alternative tool for adjacent cases like refreshing or removing watches.

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