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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: account-maintenance watchers are hidden by default and only surface when includeAccountMaintenance is true, and includes are described as bounded.

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, densely packed and front-loaded with the resource and capability summary, then the important hidden-by-default caveat. Little wasted text, though the first sentence is slightly overloaded.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (hidden account-maintenance watchers, bounded includes). Sufficient for a five-parameter, zero-required read tool.

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 60%, so the schema documents much of the surface (notably the workspaceId fallback rules). The description signals the roles of ids/filters/pagination/includes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; "bounded" is the main added nuance.

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 ("Get") and resource ("signal agents"), plus the capability surface: optional ids, filters, pagination, and stats/leads includes. An agent can distinguish this from sibling listing tools like get_signal_watches, though it does not explicitly contrast the two related concepts.

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 (fetch by ids, filter, paginate, expand includes) but never states when to choose this over alternatives like get_signal_watches or which filters apply. The one real guideline is the includeAccountMaintenance condition, which is genuine but narrow.

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