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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: account-maintenance watchers are silently hidden unless includeAccountMaintenance is true, and the stats/leads includes are explicitly bounded. It does not mention result caps or cursor expiry, but the hidden-by-default rule is exactly the kind of server-side behavior an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 waste, and the capability summary is front-loaded ahead of the single behavioral caveat. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains is minor: no explanation of how cursor/limit interact across pages, and no explicit ranking of this tool against get_signal_watches. Adequate but slightly thin for a 5-parameter, nested-include 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 description coverage is 60%, so the schema already explains most fields (ids, limit, cursor, workspaceId caveat). The description mainly restates the parameter surface ('optional ids, filters, pagination, and bounded stats/leads includes') rather than adding syntax or semantics, aside from clarifying that the maintenance filter is opt-in. Baseline 3 fits.

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 signal agents') and immediately enumerates the shapes the caller can request (ids, filters, pagination, bounded stats/leads). It is clearly a read/list tool, but it never names its nearest siblings (campaignstack_get_signal_watches, campaignstack_edit_signal_agent) to disambiguate which signal resource is which.

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?

Implied usage only: the reader can infer this is the retrieval path for signal agents and that ids/filters are optional. There is no explicit when-to-use vs get_signal_watches, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing ids vs filters. The one real routing hint is that account-maintenance watchers require includeAccountMaintenance.

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