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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that declarations never alter receipt-derived numbers (a metadata-only write) and that publishing exposes only the single address and not the rest of the watch list. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether declarations are reversible or updatable.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded before the behavioral caveats; every clause earns its place. The second sentence is dense but carries two distinct, useful guarantees.

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 9-parameter mutation with 89% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the metadata-only guarantee, and the public-publishing privacy scope. It leaves open permission needs and the return shape, but is otherwise adequate.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including enum values and descriptions. The description restates the field list at a high level without adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ("Declare") and resource (who a watched agent is), then enumerates the exact attributes set (provider, cadence, role, purpose, operator, publishing). An agent can distinguish it from get_agent_passport by the verb, but the sibling add_watch that must precede it is never named.

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 phrase "who a watched agent is" implies the agent must already be on the watch list, which is genuine pre-condition context. However, it never states when to call this versus add_watch or when to re-declare, so usage is inferred rather than specified.

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