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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the monitoring cadence (hourly), the kinds of changes recorded, and the plan-based limit on watched companies. These details give an agent meaningful operational context for a non-read-only action. It also states idempotency, consistent with the idempotentHint annotation.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds useful information: monitoring behavior, idempotency, and plan quota. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It explains what watching entails, that the action is idempotent, and what quota constraint applies. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently describes what changes are recorded.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the regNo formats and country enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Start watching a company." It also explains the monitoring behavior: comparing against registers, hourly checks, and recording changes across status, debtor lists, VAT lists, and insolvency. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unwatch_company and get_company.

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 description makes the use case clear: initiating ongoing company monitoring. It also states the plan-based quota and that the action is free, which helps an agent decide whether to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_company for one-off lookups, so it falls short of a 5.

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