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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the list can be empty and what the empty state implies. However, it says nothing about permissions, per-principal auth requirements, or whether the returned set is cached/stale, which matters for a watch-management surface.

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 short sentences, no padding, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the empty-state guidance. Every sentence carries actionable content.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive list call with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the scope, and the empty-state next steps. It leaves out only the shape/ordering of the returned list, which the missing output schema would otherwise have to carry.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline of 4 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 ('List') and resource ('watched addresses') with scope ('for this connector principal'), which cleanly separates it from add_watch, refresh_watches, and watch_demo_set. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the scoping phrase does most of the differentiating work.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional workflow: on an empty result, call watch_demo_set then get_dashboard, and explicitly warns against inventing a global feed. It stops short of stating when to prefer this listing over refresh_watches or get_feed, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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