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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers the key trait: 'AgentWatch never deploys or signs,' telling the agent this is a non-mutating planning/read operation. It also conveys that the result depends on whether a recovery is set. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are cached, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with what is returned before the workflow instruction and the safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the shape of the returned plan and the rule that determines it, plus the non-deploy/non-sign guarantee. For a 5-parameter, single-required-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only return-format/pagination-style details absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining the default-selection logic ('selected recovery', '1/2 when one recovery is set'), which clarifies what all_recoveries and recovery_label actually change. chain, purpose and agent_key remain explained only by the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Return the default Safe ownership plan for an agent EOA' — and even spells out the returned plan (threshold 1 + agent + selected recovery, 1/2 when one recovery is set). It is not a tautology and is clearly distinct in intent from siblings like list_recovery_owners or register_intent. It lacks an explicit 'this is not X' contrast, but the specificity alone makes the tool identifiable.

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?

'Call before register_intent for Safe deploys' gives explicit sequencing and names the related downstream tool, so an agent knows when in a workflow to use it. It does not state when to skip it or what happens if called standalone, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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