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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are scoped to the resolved workspace, and requested ids that don't resolve are surfaced as missingIds rather than silently omitted.

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, zero filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 the description covers workspace scoping, filter/pagination capability, and missing-id reporting. Slightly thin on the include object and filter state semantics, but complete enough for a read-only list 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%, and the schema itself documents ids, limit, cursor, and the workspaceId resolution rule well. The description only restates the parameter categories (ids, filters, pagination) plus the missingIds behavior, adding little semantic detail the schema doesn't already carry.

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 person signal watches') with scope modifiers (ids, filters, pagination). The resource phrase 'person signal watches' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling watch-getters get_company_employee_watches and get_competitor_watches, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb and the resource. The workspace-resolution note is contextual but doesn't tell the agent when to pick this over the edit/delete signal watch siblings.

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