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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns a 'stable V2 collection shape' and never leaks watches outside the resolved workspace, which tells the agent about scoping guarantees it could not infer from 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the scoping guarantee second. Efficient, though not maximally terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description supplies the workspace-scoping guarantee an agent needs. Only the relationship to sibling watch tools is missing, keeping it just below fully complete.

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?

At 60% schema description coverage, the schema carries most parameter meaning, and the workspaceId description is unusually detailed. The prose only restates that ids, company, state and pagination exist without adding format or interaction detail, so it doesn't compensate for the uncovered portion.

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+resource ('Get company employee watches') and enumerates the axes it operates on (ids, company filter, state filter, pagination). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling campaignstack_get_competitor_watches, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage through the filter list but never says when to call this versus the edit/delete watch siblings or how it relates to get_competitor_watches. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving selection to inference.

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