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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning the output includes 'check/change counts,' but it does not disclose pagination, result ordering, empty-list behavior, or whether the list is filtered in any way beyond the token scope.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the output detail is appended cleanly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description states the resource, scope, and an output detail, which is adequate. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not clarify the exact response format, whether the list is paginated, or how counts are structured, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 schema provides zero descriptions for the token parameter, so the description's phrase 'under your token' adds the meaning that the token is an authentication/scope identifier. This is useful but minimal; it does not explain the token's format, how to obtain it, or any validation requirements.

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 action: 'List all watches under your token' with an explicit output detail of 'per-watch check/change counts.' This clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for enumerating watches, distinguishing it from siblings that check, create, or delete individual watches.

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 'List all watches' implies the tool is for enumeration, and the sibling names (check_watch, create_watch, delete_watch) make the contrast obvious. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives, nor provide any exclusionary guidance such as 'use check_watch for a single watch.'

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