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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that a webhook fires on change but does not elaborate on polling intervals, error handling, how long a watch persists, or what happens when resources are created. The type-specific behaviors are merely listed, not explained, leaving significant gaps for a 16-parameter tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action ('Watch something and fire your webhook when it changes'). The type list is compact and adds value by enumerating supported modes. There is no filler or redundant 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?

The tool has 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level summary and a type list, but does not explain how parameters interact with types, expected responses, or operational details such as resource cleanup. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly configure a watch without additional knowledge.

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 has only 63% description coverage, with several parameters (days, json, port, keyword, interval_seconds) having empty descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only lists types without mapping them to the appropriate parameters. This fails to compensate for the roughly 6 undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Watch something and fire your webhook when it changes.' It also lists a broad set of watch types, making it easy to understand the core capability. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_deadman or watch_status, though the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 types list implies use cases (e.g., 'keyword' for keyword watches, 'cert' for certificate monitoring), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over a sibling or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, such as using watch_status to inspect an existing watch, so the guidance is only implied.

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