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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no webhook without an API key, polling semantics, match_count changes, and the client_ref dependency. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, all substantive and front-loaded with the core purpose before the usage caveat. No wasted words or redundant filler.

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 simple read-only listing tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, this description covers purpose, when to use it, behavioral caveats, and parameter semantics. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema already explains the client_ref behavior including the API-key caveat. The description restates the same constraint, adding only a consequence ('or the watches will not be found'), which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('your standing wants') and adds the distinguishing details that each watch shows match count and last re-run time. This clearly differentiates it from sibling create/cancel operations.

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 tells when this tool is the right choice: keyless callers have no webhook, so they must poll this endpoint to collect results. It also notes the client_ref requirement, giving a clear precondition for successful use.

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