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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious scope facts: the set is 'live' and 'bounded,' and it is a read that excludes matched jobs. It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, so it stops short of 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then selection semantics, then the when-to-use and the sibling exclusion. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present (so return shape need not be described), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the remaining job is scope and routing — both handled. The agent knows what it returns, when to call it, and which sibling covers the adjacent need.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing 'ids' as a selection from a 'bounded live set' — clarifying that omitting ids lists a finite live collection rather than everything. The status/workspaceId nuance is left to the schema, which already handles it well.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read live job watchers for a workspace') and enumerates exactly what is returned (LinkedIn account, saved searches, apply mode, profile completeness, resume, last search time). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling campaignstack_get_job_applications by stating matched jobs are not included.

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?

Gives an explicit usage context: 'use this before editing, pausing, resuming, or archiving a watcher.' It also names the alternative for a different need (matches/applications → campaignstack_get_job_applications), so the agent can route correctly without inference.

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