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

Annotations already cover safety and statefulness (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: results are newest first, returned in compact search shape, the operation is free, and daily cadence is sufficient. It does not explicitly explain that checking advances the last-checked cursor, though the 'since the last check_watch' wording and annotations imply stateful behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the result scope first, then ordering, shape, frequency, cost, and docs. Every phrase carries useful information with no repetition.

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, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, shape, cost, and cadence. Minor gaps remain around no-new-results behavior and whether the check advances state, but the definition is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 the single watch_id parameter is already documented as the w_... id from watch_search. The description adds no further parameter details such as format or validation beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific operation and resource: retrieving what appeared in a watched search since the last check. It also enumerates the returned result types (job postings, companies, people), ordering (newest first), and shape (compact search shape), and explicitly distinguishes the initial watch creation step by naming watch_search.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call this after watch_search to see new results since the last check, and notes that daily checking is enough. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as list_watches or describe failure/no-new-results cases, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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