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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the mechanism (poller pass writing explorer txs into AgentWatch), which is useful, but says nothing about latency, whether the pass is synchronous or blocking, cost/rate sensitivity, or whether it can be safely repeated. Adequate but incomplete for a trigger-style operation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then usage guidance, then parameter notes. No filler, though the last sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation trigger tool, the description leaves open what the caller observes after the pass (does it return results, or must get_feed be re-checked?) and whether the refresh blocks. The core behavior is covered, but these operational gaps matter for correct 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%, so both optional parameters are already documented in the schema, including the chain default. The description only restates their purpose ('focus the pass') without adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('force an immediate poller pass'), its scope ('this principal's watched addresses'), and its effect ('catch up txs from explorers into AgentWatch'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_watch (registration) and get_feed (read-only retrieval).

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions ('after add_watch / a fresh broadcast when get_feed is still empty') and references the sibling get_feed as the fallback state. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., during normal operation or high-frequency polling), which keeps it from a 5.

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